From kls Mon Jan 8 01:35:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dr. Dale Tuttle" Subject: AA MD-83 BDA Incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jan 96 01:35:19 Organization: Ciesin Aviation Week finally ran a large story about the AA MD-83 which clipped the trees coming into Hartford several weeks ago. As some of you may recall, I asked them why they originally did not run a story about the incident. They replied that incidents such as those were "not uncommon" and thus elected not to report it. Judging by the detail of their current story, this was not a common incident! The aircraft ran through the trees for about 250ft and finally landed short of the runway (in the over-run zone). The article gives a pretty detailed description of an extremely close call. However, all of this begs the question of the original refusal to print an article. Was Aviation Week unaware of the true scope of the incident or were they trying to keep the incident low-key in the interest of the airline? Regardless, it took them an awfully long time to publish an article about a very serious incident. Comments? Happy New Year to all... Dale Tuttle Saginaw, MI From kls Mon Jan 8 01:35:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: AA 757 Crash 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 Jan 96 01:35:20 In article Jennings Heilig writes: >using the checklists??? Egad...I don't even fly a Cessna 152 without >using a checklist! Here we go again. "I'm not an expert, BUT..." (sigh) It is normally up to the captain's discretion when, precisely, a checklist (which, includentally, is not a do-list) is called. The omission of a checklist has not been indicated as a causal factor in this crash, nor has it been stated whether such an omission would have had anything to do with the crash. Speed brakes are what most people are currently focusing on, but apart from arming them for automatic deployment on landing, the in-flight use of them is "as required." Their use is not scripted, any more than manipulation of the control column is. We don't know squat about the crash. Just the vague media reports. And clearly, from the media reports, the checklist issue is being mentioned only as another factor in the direction of presenting pilot error as the cause of this crash. >This is very disturbing if it's all true. To be sure, there is a long >way to go in the investigation, but when Robert Crandall is issuing >statements appologizing for the apparent human error involved at this >early stage, it doesn't bode well for AA... When the CEO of any organization is quick to make very public comments agreeing with the very preliminary findings of any accident investigation, it generally means they just want to get a scapegoat assigned, get the issue out of the news, pay off the lawsuits, and move on. Remember, for example, that the Colombians were saying that terrorism couldn't *possibly* have been a factor--before the CVR or DFDR were recovered! The NTSB could certainly use some of their accident investigators: they're *good*! Complex crashes aren't fun for anyone: much easier to write it off as a pilot screw-up. We certainly wouldn't want airline training, duty time limitations, local controller competence, the viability of the destination, security, or other systems issues discussed in scrutiny, would we? The scapegoat concept is very attractive, and one which a lot of pilots will eagerly buy into ("he fucked up"), but unfortunately, it's also a concept which does almost nothing about obtaining the truth. Whatever it may turn out to be. -- 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 Jan 8 01:35:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) Subject: American Airlines Flight 965 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jan 96 01:35:20 To Whom it May Concern, I have been following the threads here and have been reading what I can in the paper regarding the AA flight that crashed into a mountain in Colombia. From what I have read, there were four survivors from the crash. I have not been able to find out where these four people were seated on the plane. Does anyone reading this know where on the plane they were seated? Were they all seated together? Thanks in advance. regards, Lars Ewell From kls Mon Jan 8 01:37:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: American Airlines Flight 965 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jan 96 01:37:27 > From what I have read, there were four survivors >from the crash. I have not been able to find out where >these four people were seated on the plane. Does anyone >reading this know where on the plane they were seated? >From what I understand, all of the survivors were seated to the right of the aisle in two consecutive rows over the wing, with the exception of Milagro, who was in a kennel in one of the cargo holds. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jan 8 01:37:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wilder@unixg.ubc.ca (Kevin M. Wilder) Subject: A few questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jan 96 01:37:27 In this month's Flying magazine, one of thier regular columnists (Len Morgan) mentions two somewhat comical commercial aviation incidents. The first of these involves a US commercial airliner that not only landed at the wrong airport, but in the wrong country, and the second (and more serious) involves an airliner that "ditched" in the Sahara after running out of fuel. Does anyone have any more information on these events? My final question has to do with the A340. I saw an Air Canada A340 at the Vancouver International Airport over the holidays, and I noticed that both ailerons were "drooping" substantially. (no, they were not the flaps, unless the A340 has flaperons) why do they do this? I have not noticed this on any other aircraft. I know these are all somewhat trivial questions, but I'm still curious. Any information will be appreciated. Regards, Kevin -- "The scientist explores what is; the engineer creates what never has been." - Theodore Von Karman From kls Mon Jan 8 01:37:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: What happens after "light" crash ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jan 96 01:37:27 In the case of Tower Air, the crew supposedly decided that an evacuation was not necessary since fire did not errupt immediately after the crash and they could wait inside the plane instead of evacuating. QUESTION: in the event of an incident such as the Tower Air (fully fueled, and probably leaking due to engine damage), if fire does not erupt immediatly, is it safe to assume that it will not erupt at all ? QUESTION: in the event of an incident such as Tower Air, is it safe to use any of the plane's electrical systems (intercoms, lights etc) after it has been decided to stay indoors ? Or must FA and pilots use portable equipment such as walki-talky and megaphones ? QUESTION: Assuming that in such an incident , the pilots would not have survived, would he plane's systems (engines, APU, generators etc) automatically shutdown or would they continue to operate if they were not damaged ? QUESTION: In such an incident, I assume that some doors would have had to be opened to provide fresh air while the whole plane was waiting for the airstairs to arrive. How long can a fully loaded 747 go without any ventilation and all doors closed ? When when they do open doors for ventilation, would they deploy the slides, or disarm the mechanism ? In the later case, if a door is opened without the slide, if slide needs to be deployed, does this require that door be closed, mechanism armed and then door re-opened ? From kls Mon Jan 8 01:37:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jan 96 01:37:28 In this and other related newsgroups, most people seem to like Boeing's planes much better than Airbus's. Since these newsgroups are dominated by US audience, I was curious whether people from other parts of the world share the same view. During my trip to the Far East, I successfully requested cockpit visits on three sectors of flight (LAX-Taipei on Singapore's [SQ] B747-400, Taipei-Hong Kong on Cathay Pacific's [CX] A330-300, and Hong Kong-SFO again on SQ's B747-400). On both SQ flights, there were two flight crews on each flight, but on one of the flights, I only met one crew. In total, I have chatted with five captains and three first officers (one New Zealander, one British, two British-accent Caucasians, and four Singaporeans of Chinese ethnicity). Although, the sample was very small, at least none of them had any (patriotic) reason to favor American products. Some of SQ's flight crew that I talked to had previous experience on the A310, some didn't. None liked Airbus planes. One captain even said that Airbus planes should be kept on the ground not in the air; and he thought Boeing did everything right, especially on the B777. One first officer cited some "clumsy" designs/procedures on the A310; but he thought the designers at Boeing were "geniuses". On the CX flight, after the pilot told me that he had previously flown the B747, I asked him which plane he liked better, the B747 or the A330. He *hesitated*, then he said the "feel" of the A330 was less "positive" than the B747. I didn't ask him to elaborate because he was preparing for landing. >From a passenger's perspective, my A330 flight was a pleasant one. Sitting in the jump seat for the landing at Hong Kong's Kai Tak Airport made my A330 flight an awesome experience. Nevertheless, I am surprised that many of the pilots I met liked the Boeing planes so much more than the Airbus planes. One pilot also told me that Air France liked their B767 much better than the A300/310. Perhaps, that's why in 1995 Air France cancelled most of its outstanding aircraft orders but ordered four B767s. *** Now, let's return to the Airbus/Boeing competition watch: 1. Boeing had a small victory by winning Taiwan's China Airlines (CAL) B737-800 order. First of all, it's the first third-generation B737 order in the region. Furthermore, when CAL leased a few A320s in late 1994, everyone thought that Airbus had the inside track for CAL's order. Lately, all the new narrow-body aircraft orders/leases made by Far Eastern carriers have gone to either McD (e.g., EVA for the MD90 and U-Land for the MD-88) or Airbus (e.g., Vietnam, Air Macau, Sichuan). 2. Philippine Airlines (PAL) is going to make a major purchase of 32 aircraft, of which 8 will be the B747, the rest will be various Airbus aircraft (12 A320s, 8 A330s and 4 A340s). Airbus needs an Asian order desperately. However, PAL is the weakest international airline in the region, Airbus needs orders from a more credible Asian customer than PAL. Just a few years ago, PAL unilaterally cancelled its order of six A340-200s. After many negotiations, PAL was allowed to cancel two, the other four were leased to Cathay Pacific by Airbus, but eventually will go to PAL when Cathay receives its own A340-300 this year. 3. As expected, Malaysia (MAS) is going to announce a B777/B747 order soon, so will Virgin Atlantic. Airbus made a last-minute concession to Malaysia by offering some A340 sub-contract work to MAS Engineering, but MAS seems to be determined to go with Boeing. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Mon Jan 8 01:37:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jan 96 01:37:28 In article , Gunnar Aaboe writes: > >Does any one have any > >idea about what happened ? The news here said that the pilot pulled up > >when he saw the mountain. How could the aircraft get so far off course? > >I wonder if pilot fatigue was a factor... Maybe the pilots woke up when > >the Ground Proximity Warning System warning horn sounded. I also wonder > >if there was a problem with the ILS system at the airport. > >The pilots may have been attempting to intercept the localizer, but maybe > >the localizer was not in operation. Hopefully we'll learn something > >soon... [stuff on radio ducting deleted] > If a pilot > use a ILS where the glidescope is too low he will not see any problems > and not report any. I don't think this has been the problem in this last > accident, but I think the people who have constructed this ILS systems > and the people using them should know that under spesial conditions they > do have have problem. Ducting is not a problem on an ILS, if the procedure is correctly flown. What can be more serious problem is picking up a false lobe of the glideslope (happened to me once during training as an exercise), but again flying the procedure will prevent this. The fixes used along with altitude vary in their type (VOR, DME, NDB, RNAV, 75MHz marker), but are not changed appreciably by ducting over the ranges and geometries used. The altitudes and approach fixes on the approach plan give information that allows positive verification of the main lobe of the glideslope, and the procedure turn or radar vectors give positive intercept of the localizer. In other words, there is always information regarding what altitude and in relation to what fixes the glideslope can be expected to be intercepted, or an aircraft already on the glideslope can be expected to pass through. While the intercept may occur higher, the aircraft will always pass through known altitudes at known fixes on the way down. That's part of the cross-check used for sanity and safety on an approach. It sure looks like the flight crew lost situational awareness in this case, but I don't think it was error in the navaids themselves. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GLCH57A@prodigy.com (Bonnie Britt) Subject: AAIB impound of B737-200 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:38 Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Does anyone have any information on the British Air Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) impound of a B737-200 from British Airways Oct. 22, 1995 after the aircraft rolled right for several seconds @ 20 degrees per second while the crew struggled to regain control. This was reported in early December. Is there anything on what is being examined or what the AAIB has discovered? Boeing is said to be cooperating. The aircraft took off from and landed in Glasgow. Thank you. Bonnie Britt bonniebritt@mcimail.com Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Dill Subject: Re: AA MD-83 BDA Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:38 Without knowing all the facts I'll still hazard a guess that the altimeter settings given the crew were several points (maybe as much as 15-20) high. 1. At 1:00 a.m. the ARTCC RDP computer may have been off=line for routine testing/maintainance as is often the case. This means the altimeter settings must be hand delivered to each sector by a teletype operator located away from the control room. 2. The BDL weather sequence stated "presure falling rapidly". In this situation a delay of two hours (not too uncommon) could mean a large error. 3. The tower, ALWAYS the best and most accurate source for altimeter settings, was closed. John Dill ATCS Cleveland ARTCC From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: veryjr@aol.com (VeryJR) Subject: Re: AA 757 Crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: veryjr@aol.com (VeryJR) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:39 How would Jennings explain the crash of his 152 if it happened one minute before he normally does an approach checklist? It's not that the checklist wasn't completed, the accident just occured before the checklist was called for. Nevertheless, we should let the investigation tell the real story, as I'm confident it will. Kent Wien Dallas, TX From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jas12@cus.cam.ac.uk (Julian Scarfe) Subject: Re: AA 757 Crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:39 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > We don't know squat about the crash. Just the vague media reports. And > clearly, from the media reports, the checklist issue is being mentioned only > as another factor in the direction of presenting pilot error as the cause > of this crash. Wally Roberts has put together some information on the accident, including the Columbian press release with some preliminary details, and a TPC (half-mil) chart of the area in JPEG format: http://www.webcom.com/terps/cali/welcome.html Most of what has been said about the crash has been speculation (you can find some more opinions on rec.aviation.ifr), but it does seem from what has been published that both interference (bombs etc.) and major equipment failure are extremely unlikely to have been factors, leaving this as yet another controlled flight into terrain accident. As always in such cases, the causal factors leading up to the accident require careful analysis -- simply citing "crew error" very rarely tells the whole story. Julian Scarfe jas12@cus.cam.ac.uk From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Pete Coe) Subject: Re: What happens after "light" crash ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:40 mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: >In the case of Tower Air, the crew supposedly decided that an evacuation was not >necessary since fire did not errupt immediately after the crash and they could >wait inside the plane instead of evacuating. >QUESTION: in the event of an incident such as the Tower Air (fully fueled, and > probably leaking due to engine damage), if fire does not erupt > immediatly, is it safe to assume that it will not erupt at all ? I'm no expert but I had been led to believe that aviation fuel has an extremly high flashpoint, to the point that you could actually use it to extinguish a fire. It only becomes flamable when it is atomized, or wicked. Quite literally you could stand in a pool of jet fuel and throw lit matches into it. In the case of the tower crash where the weather outside was extreme, it was probably safer for the passengers to stay inside the shelter of the plane than to risk exposure and escape injuries on the outside of the plane. Still, I don't know if I would be so sure of the answer if I was on the plane. From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: adrian@airmail.net (adrian reedy) Subject: Re: A few questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: customer of Internet America Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:40 On 08 Jan 96 01:37:27 , wilder@unixg.ubc.ca (Kevin M. Wilder) wrote: | In this month's Flying magazine, one of thier regular columnists |(Len Morgan) mentions two somewhat comical commercial aviation |incidents. The first of these involves a US commercial airliner that not |only landed at the wrong airport, but in the wrong country, and the |second (and more serious) involves an airliner that "ditched" in the Sahara |after running out of fuel. Does anyone have any more information on |these events? I have faint memories that this was a B24 named "Lady Be Good". 50/50 chance I'm wrong. |A340 at the Vancouver International Airport over the holidays, and I |noticed that both ailerons were "drooping" substantially. (no, they were |not the flaps, unless the A340 has flaperons) why do they do this? I |have not noticed this on any other aircraft. Same thing on the L10ll. It's due to an absence of hydraulic pressure, and the fact that they're not physically connected. The leading edge kreuger flaps on the 727 always droop with the hydraulics shut down. -- adrian@airmail.net adrian.reedy@lunatic.com 1:124/2113 From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cra@servtech.com (Curtis R. Anderson) Subject: Re: A few questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gleepy's Henhouse Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:41 In article , wilder@unixg.ubc.ca (Kevin M. Wilder) wrote: > My final question has to do with the A340. I saw an Air Canada >A340 at the Vancouver International Airport over the holidays, and I >noticed that both ailerons were "drooping" substantially. (no, they were >not the flaps, unless the A340 has flaperons) why do they do this? I >have not noticed this on any other aircraft. The A340 is a fly-by-wire aircraft and its aileron surfaces are powered individually, and the fly-by-wire computer insures the surfaces are kept complementary. On a more traditional aircraft, there is a cable linking both ailerons, so that their positions are always complementary under normal circumstances. It is supposedly a way to distinguish a fly-by-wire aircraft. -- Curtis R. Anderson, "Official Chicken Breeder of Hill 10", SP 2.5?, KoX URLs: http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ mailto:cra@servtech.com ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ Opinions mine (not Service Tech's!) unless marked otherwise!!! From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A few questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:42 In article , wilder@unixg.ubc.ca (Kevin M. Wilder) wrote: > In this month's Flying magazine, one of thier regular columnists > (Len Morgan) mentions two somewhat comical commercial aviation > incidents. The first of these involves a US commercial airliner that not > only landed at the wrong airport, but in the wrong country, and the > second (and more serious) involves an airliner that "ditched" in the Sahara > after running out of fuel. Does anyone have any more information on > these events? The wrong country incident was a Northwest flight on its way to Frankfurt. Somewhere over Ireland, the air traffic controllers apparently got the idea that the flight was bound for Brussels, and began directing the flight accordingly. The amazing thing (to me) is that the pilots never caught the error. They followed the controllers' instructions all the way in to Brussels. But what was TRULY amazing was that all the passengers could see on the moving map displays in the cabins exactly where they were bound. When it was obvious from the displays that the plane was headed for Brussels, or at least NOT to Frankfurt, the passengers began pointing this out to the cabin crew. The attendents, even though they could see the displays themselves, refused to question the flight crew, stating that during the approach phase of the flight they were not allowed to disturb the pilots. By the time the plane was on approach to Brussels airport, the only people who didn't know where they were were the two men in the cockpit. The first they realized they were 200 miles away from where they were supposed to be was when they broke out of the overcast and saw the Brussels runway in front of them. The captain elected to go ahead and land. The crew was immediately relieved of duty, and the passengers were bussed to Frankfurt, arriving 6 hours late. I don't know how the blame for all this was ulitmately divided up, nor do I know what action, if any, has been taken against the flight crew. At no time was the plane in any danger, as the flight crew and the controllers did a routine job of flying to Brussels via the normal traffic routes and approaches. Go figure.... C. Marin Faure Video Services, The Boeing Company author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Brian Harding Subject: Temperature and takeoff roll Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Brian Harding Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:42 I posted the following question in Rec.Aviation.Misc. and got real general responses about temperature affecting performance etc. Could anyone here give any more specific info? Like how MUCH shorter the takeoff roll would would be at 0 deg. compared to 60 deg. in a heavy jet. Federal Express has started flying an Airbus A310 out of MHT (Manchester, NH). I went over to the airport last night after work to see it depart and was surprised at how quickly it got off the ground, which leads to a question I have always had about outside temperature and takeoff roll. It was about 0 deg. F at the time of departure. How much of an effect does the temp. have on takeoff roll? Is the difference between 0 deg. and say 60 deg. NOTICEABLE to the flight crew? Thanks BH ====================================================================== Brian F. Harding brian@bfh.mv.com Milford, NH USA ====================================================================== From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: CSAT III Landing Control References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:42 In a discussion on CAT III, we were debating the the actual requirements for the various subclasses. The operational requirements come down to CAT IIIa Decision height 50 feet, uncoupled (manual) landing, CAT IIIB, no decision height (full automatic landing), disconnect autopilot at a defined speed for control, CAT IIIc, automatic landing and roll-out guidance to a full stop. Questions - 1)At what speed does the nose wheel steering become effective? 2)As a CAT IIIc landing would require a fully controlled nose steering mechanism, are there any commercial aircraft certified for this? 3)If there is someone knowledgable about the L-1011, what is the mecanism for nose wheel steering (i.e. tiller/control wheel or controlled through foot pedals?) Brian From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:43 All I can say is, Boeing has been building airliners since 1956. Airbus is a committee (at best). Boeing listens to it's customers, Airbus treats them like it's the customer's privilege to buy airplanes from Airbus. The reason I say this is that an incident was told to me by someone in engineering at FedEx in Memphis. Airbus was asked to dispose of the old shade of Federal Express purple when FedEx changed color schemes about two years ago. The new shade is considerably darker. Not only did Airbus not dispose of it as asked, but they continued using it (incorrectly) on the new paint scheme! As if that weren't bad enough, they shipped a large quantity of it up to Hamburg where some of the A310s which were being converted to freighters were being painted! The FedEx people in Memphis were more than a little miffed at Airbus over that one. This just points out one of the differences in corporate philosophy. I have nothing to do with either company, but I feel *much* better getting on a Boeing airplane than an Airbus. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:43 In article , Andrew Chuang writes: > In this and other related newsgroups, most people seem to like Boeing's > planes much better than Airbus's. Since these newsgroups are dominated by > US audience, I was curious whether people from other parts of the world > share the same view. Since Airbus has about 30% of the market (approx), it should be expected that the "public opinion" might follow these numbers more or less. Hence, you might expect about 70% of airline employees to prefer Boeing. As well, asking a 747-400 captain for his opinion on the smaller Airbus planes is perhaps not 100% fair. Asking a 737 captain to compare a 320 would be more fair. From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bp411@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Kevin T. Maloney) Subject: Need CAD file of 747 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bp411@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Kevin T. Maloney) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:43 Does anybody out there have a CAD file of a Boeing 747? Doesn't have to be any particular model. Preferably a 3D wireframe mesh. Preferably AutoCAD, but I can handle DXF, IGES, or 3D Studio files. Let me know via e-mail, or just post to this group. Thanks much, in advance. Kevin T. Maloney bp411@cleveland.freenet.edu -- "May the saddest days of your future be no sadder than the happiest days of your past." - An Irish Blessing From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Flight Recorder Durability References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:44 David Lesher asks 29 Dec 95 22:22:23 :- > Has there even been any move toward redundant CVR/FDR's? Not as such (that I am aware of), but see below. > I know, short of being being cast out of pure neutronium or such > they are pretty rugged. Not from what I have read, they're not! > While some are lost in the incident (I recall reading of one such > case recently - tail section destroyed - but the details escape me) A320 crash near Strasbourg? The DFDR was totally fried in the fire that consumed the tail-cone. Strangely enough, the CVR which was mounted close to it was still usable. Regarding "redundant" recorders, the flight parameters in this crash were recovered from the Quick Access Recorder (QAR). This is mounted in a completely different place (the roof), and records exactly the same information as the DFDR. It is intended for use by the operator in checking on crew performance, fuel consumption, etc. In the Strasbourg crash, it was damaged by fire but not totally destroyed, and it was possible to decode it and extract most of the information that would normally have been obtained from the DFDR. The Aircraft Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) could be considered to provide another form of redundancy, in which the main parameters are broadcast continually and recorded at a ground receiving station. > ... other cases have had prior damage that rendered it worthless. Well, there was the famous "kink" in the DFDR tape recovered from the A320 that crashed at Habsheim, but whether that was prior damage or caused while extracting the tape is a moot point. > I've heard, for example, that the modern FDR are more > frail so than the old "scribe on stainless foil" ones. (Anyone know > what the MTBF really is?) Since the DFDR is non-critical equipment I *think* its *required* reliability is of the order of 1 - 10^-5 per flying hour. The actual failure rate seems to be much higher, judging by comments in recent incident reports published by the AAIB. There are two separate problems:- 1. Resistance to fire following crash. The cases are designed to resist something like 300 degrees C for 30 minutes. (Don't quote me on this, I'm too lazy to look up the actual spec. right now!) After that, the tape is frazzled. (It is fairly ordinary oxide-coated plastic tape.) Following the report on the Strasbourg crash, the DGAC were instructed to look into improving the fire-resistance of the recorders. 2. Recording failure during normal use. This is due to vibration, and has been found to be a serious problem with the Loral-Fairchild recorders with which the A320 is equipped. In an incident at Heathrow to an A320 operated by Excalibur Airlines, the DFDR was found to yield virtually no useful data after take-off, since the data was corrupted, apparently by vibration. (The corrputed sections correlated fairly well with manoeuvres that would be expected to cause vibration.) This was raised as a specific concern by the AAIB. The problem can be alleviated by mounting the recorders on anti-vibration trays designed according to a particular RTCA standard. Amusingly, Airbus apparently use a more resilient make of recorder for test flights, but then install the bog-standard (and cheaper) Loral-Fairchild for operational use. > Granted they are not cheap, as shown by the FAA foot-dragging > on upgrading 737 FDR's; but would not dual units -- in diverse > locations, pay off in just one incident? I would generally agree, but we might already have just that (a QAR in the roof) plus a completely different recording mechanism (ACARS). One other problem which David does not mention, but which I have seen raised as a matter for concern in just about every A320 crash report I have read, is that modern aircraft are becoming so complex, and their on-board systems have so many modes of operation, that it is difficult to record everything. For example, on the A320, the modes in which the EFCS (Electrical Flight Control System) and FMGS (Flight Management and Guidance System) are operating are *simply not recorded*. To take just one example, in the Strasbourg investigation, it was *essential* to discover whether the FMGS was in "Vertical Speed" or "Flight Path Angle" mode, but this could only be deduced by doing simulated flights in each mode and comparing the simulated positions of the flight control surfaces with those from the actual flight. (The control surface positions *are* recorded, the system modes are *not*.) Nice detective work, but it shouldn't have been necessary! -- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) Subject: Re: Carry-ons References: <4bcknr$i0l@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <4ber65$f5t@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <1995Dec22.172118.1@eisner.decus.org> <4bpoo1$ah1@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:44 [Cross-posting to sci.aeronautics.airliners because I believe this one message has some relevance to airliner design.] I believe that at the core of this whole problem is the technological fact that modern airliners can efficiently and effectively carry considerably more weight -- or technically speaking more density -- than is represented by the density of human beings. In other words, the average plane probably could carry even more passengers than are now squeezed in, if there were just some way to cram them in (leading to design horrors like the 757). If this were not the case, airlines could install some kind of large luggage bins or lockers just inside the doorways and allow passengers to just jump their bulkier carryons into them as they entered the plane. Sure, there would be problems, such as slowing down the deplaning process, and bags on the bottom getting squished; but many of us would use such a system in preference to underseat storage if it were available. The primary reason this is impractical, however, is that it would cost seats, whereas overhead luggage bins do not. In fact to the extent that airlines can motivate passengers to use carryon luggage and overhead bins, they both save on baggage handling costs and free up some space in the luggage holds which they may even be able to sell for freight or mail carriage (I don't know if any airlines really count on this, but would be interested to hear from anyone who knows). Perhaps the solution would be to eliminate the _overhead_ bins (or make them so small that they would accept only purses, pillows and coats); raise the passenger seats a foot or so above the aisle level; and put the "overhead" luggage bins _under_ the seats (requiring suitcases to be slid in from the aisle). This would certainly solve the turbulence safety problem; and the added inconvenience would sure help cut down on the excessive carry-on problem. Might be an interesting idea... From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chrisddr@aol.com (chrisddr) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Premier1 Internet Services; Sultan, WA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:45 Lets think. The reports from the feds say the spoilers were slightly deployed for decent. Normally the pilots won't try to modulate the spoilers to get a correct decent because it is too hard.....but the autopilot will, very rapidly. The feds said the pilots advanced the throttles and started to pull up. Pulling back on the yoke while the spoilers are slightly deployed might cause the wing to stall if the spoiler/decent/speed combo was right. So if the GPWS aural went off and the pilots didn't disengage the autopilot that could explain the reason for spoiler deployment. I don't recall the deflection of yoke until system disengage. From kls Wed Jan 10 02:01:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Noise, size, and bypass? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:45 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>The JT8D was designed mostly in the '50s and early 60s! There are about >>8,000 of them around, all LOUD! > I agree, 12,000 is the LOW estimate. The Jt8D is also the basis of the military engine in the Grumman Intruder too. Plus spares, plus smaller applications.... its a BUNCH of engines. >They're also not all loud, relatively speaking. The MD-80 series uses >the JT8D-200 series engines which are quiet enough to meet Stage III >noise requirements. Older JT8Ds, sans hush-kits, are indeed pretty >loud, though not as bad as an old JT3 or JT4 from a 707 or DC-8. Agreed again. When I think "jet noise", its eseentially the sound of a JT3 that comes to mind, since that was the engine on the jets (707's) I recall seeing and hearing as a little kid. Old JT8D's are close, but lack the banshee-shriek of a JT3 or pure jet like a J-57. THOSE are loud engines! Also, the JT8D is surely one of the most reliable aircraft engines ever to see service. My understanding is that P&W developed it in a shockingly short time span in the early '60s *specifically* to meet Boeing's requirements for the 727. -- 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 Jan 11 04:08:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Patrick Forman Subject: Re: AAIB impound of B737-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UnipalmPIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UnipalmPIPEX) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Jan 96 04:08:34 GLCH57A@prodigy.com (Bonnie Britt) wrote: >Does anyone have any information on the British Air Accident >Investigation Board (AAIB) impound of a B737-200 from British Airways Oct. > 22, 1995 after the aircraft rolled right for several seconds @ 20 >degrees per second while the crew struggled to regain control. > >This was reported in early December. > >Is there anything on what is being examined or what the AAIB has >discovered? Boeing is said to be cooperating. The aircraft took off from >and landed in Glasgow. The UK AAIB issued a Special Bulletin s1/96 on the BA 737 incident last week. It came to no firm conclusions and now awaits a Formal Investigation. The report adds a caveat that there are significant differences between the Pittsburgh and Colorado Springs incidents and the BA 22 October alarm. The latter was a roll/yaw oscillation lasting about seven minutes: the two earlier accidents were characterised by a single departure in yaw/roll from controlled flight. Incidentally, the flight was from Gatwick and return to Gatwick after the crew's MAYDAY. The AAIB Fax number is 01252 376999. It is too long to transcribe here. Regards, Patrick Forman, Cambridge UK. From kls Thu Jan 11 04:08:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: AAIB impound of B737-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Jan 96 04:08:35 Bonnie Britt (GLCH57A@prodigy.com) wrote: : Does anyone have any information on the British Air Accident : Investigation Board (AAIB) impound of a B737-200 from British Airways Oct. : 22, 1995 after the aircraft rolled right for several seconds @ 20 : degrees per second while the crew struggled to regain control. The AAIB investigation is now complete and will be published in due course. The control deviations were substantially more serious than you describe. : Is there anything on what is being examined or what the AAIB has : discovered? Boeing is said to be cooperating. The aircraft took off from : and landed in Glasgow. The aircraft took off and landed at Gatwick. There were subsequent test flights also from Gatwick which failed to reproduce the fault. BA have instigated a fleet wide inspection of the component concerned. Other operators ( I assume ) will also be carrying this out. Boeing did indeed cooperate and the Boeing test pilots were impressed by the aircraft handling. -- Ian Judge _|_ ian@judgei.demon.co.uk _____(_)_____ ! ! ! From kls Thu Jan 11 04:08:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Jan 96 04:08:35 In article chrisddr@aol.com (chrisddr) writes: >Lets think. >The reports from the feds say the spoilers were slightly deployed for decent. >Normally the pilots won't try to modulate the spoilers to get a correct >decent because it is too hard..... They may very well modify them to control speed, though. That's what they're there for. >but the autopilot will, very rapidly. The autopilot has authority over the speed brakes? I don't think so. What's your source? -- 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 Jan 11 04:08:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Snow planning 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: 11 Jan 96 04:08:36 The majors clearly have extensive scenarios for snow. Even account for the fact those plans might not plan for a Blizzard of '96 size event, they DID have many hours notice the excretment was going to enter the HVAC.... So WHY did they abandon such large portions of the fleet in the Ground Zero airports? Why not ferry them anywhere of the area ahead of time? Then they'd at least be available for use -- as it was, they cancelled 33% of all domestic flights; I'd guess at least a third were due to equipment shortfalls. Or they could pull maintenance cycles on 'em -- unless the maint. base was covered. Not to mention the possibility of damage from plows & thrown snow with (oops) other stuff in it, or such. -- 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........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Thu Jan 11 04:08:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Snow planning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Jan 96 04:08:36 >So WHY did they abandon such large portions of the fleet in the >Ground Zero airports? Why not ferry them anywhere of the area ahead >of time? Then they'd at least be available for use -- I don't know about the other airlines, but United got most of their planes out, ending up with only 17 stranded at snowed-in airports. Many were sitting at O'Hare, but that's because they didn't have any place to fly them, not because they *couldn't* fly them. Some that were stuck may not have had a reason to be elsewhere -- UA has only two 747-222Bs, for example, which fly JFK/EWR-NRT exclusively. Except for some damage potential, as you note, they had no reason to fly out the one in the New York area so I imagine it was one of the 17 that stayed. (The other one presumably sat in Tokyo until New York opened up again.) >as it was, they cancelled 33% of all domestic flights; I'd guess at >least a third were due to equipment shortfalls. I seriously doubt lack of equipment was the problem. Given that all three northeast shuttle airports (BOS, LGA, DCA) were closed, along the major eastern transcon airports (JFK, IAD) and big eastern hubs (EWR, PHL, BWI), I would not be surprised if ~33% of all domestic flights were cancelled simply because they were supposed to go to or from one of the airports that was closed. There might be other problems, too, like having the equipment but not having it in the right place, or not having crews. I flew DCA-MIA a year or so ago and the plane was flying its last leg of a long day -- EUG-SFO-DEN-BWI-DCA-MIA. A problem at DEN, for example, might have meant no aircraft to fly my DCA-MIA flight because the plane was in SFO, or perhaps no crew if a DEN-based crew was supposed to fly the last three segments. >Or they could pull maintenance cycles on 'em -- unless the maint. >base was covered. Most maintenance is scheduled years in advance, or at least *many* months, and the maintenance bases are kept busy. There would be neither reason nor resources to perform maintenance just because the aircraft has nothing better to do that day. >Not to mention the possibility of damage from plows & thrown snow >with (oops) other stuff in it, or such. Perhaps, though an airliner is a pretty sturdy piece of equipment, plus I suspect the usual hubbub at an airport (often including snow plowing in the winter) provides at least as much opportunity for damage. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jan 11 04:08:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bernhard@eurecom.fr (Christoph Bernhardt) Subject: 'Gas' used in tires of airliners? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eurecom, Sophia Antipolis, FRANCE Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Jan 96 04:08:37 A friend of mine recently claimed that airliner tires are filled with a special gas not just with normal (compressed) air. Is this true? He claims that in this special gas nitrogen is replaced by helium to avoid some adverse effects if a tire should get too hot or even burn. Just wondering... Christoph -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Christoph BERNHARDT | "Every time I think I know where Institut EURECOM | it's at, they move it." -------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Martin Subject: Busy January 18 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:27 Organization: JiMartin Inc. AA had A300 MIASJU take severe turbulence over NAS. Flight continued on to SJU with some pax taken to the hospital...1 critical. Question I had was that if the aircraft was around NAS (Nassau) why continue on to SJU (San Juan) when MIA (Miami) is closer? TW had an accidental aft ventral stair deployment in flight from St Louis to San Antonio. These are the same stairs used by the famous DB Cooper hijack and parachute jump. Apparently member of cockpit crew was tethered and opened rear bulkhead door into the open stairway to actuate the stair closing mechanism. From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bi737@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel G. Sharpes) Subject: DC-8 Super 71/72/73 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bi737@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel G. Sharpes) Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:27 Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH Douglas mod'ed the DC-8 with the CFM56 engines, much as the US Air Force did with their KC-135R. When they re-engined the KC-135, though, the Air Force included an engine-out compensation system to improve directional control during takeoff. Did Douglas (or Cammacorp) include a similar kind of compensation system on the Super 71, 72 or 73? Thanks -- Dan Sharpes From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: 1995 Aircraft Order List Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:29 *** 1995 Large Commercial Aircraft Order (Jan 16, 96) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| |Unknown| 2U 23U 1U 4| | | |Unknown| | 7 1U | | |Unknown| | | 4U 5U| |OS | 2| | | |WN | | 7 | | |NU | | 1 | | |OZ | | 3G | | |JL | | 4 16G 1G 5P| | |IY | 2U | | | |JM | 4C | | | |CI | | 6 | | |AB | | 2 | | |CX | 2R | | | |SQ | | 1P 28R | | |S'pore Aircraft(767 for AZ) | 3G 6U | | |8Q | | | 5P | |GF | 6R | | | |HV | | 8 | | |SA | | 2U 4U | | |SK | | 6 | | |Turkmenistan | 2R | | |5J | | | 50B | |HY | | 1U 2U | | |LH | 20C 1| 4G | | |NH | 10I | 3G 3P 10P| | |BR | | | 6I | |Itochu(for LG) | 2 | | |SK | | | 2I | |ILFC | | 40 11 3 | | |MS | 3| 3U | | |LO | | 1 | | |CP | | 1G | | |VP | | | 2G| |KL | | 2G 3G | | |GE | 2I 2I | | | |IW | | | 2P | |U Land | | | 2P | |KE | | 4P| 3P | |CV | | 1G | | |5X | | 5R | | |AC | 10C | | | |BQ | | 2 | | |UX | | 8 | | |NG | | 2 | | |SV | | 5G 23G | 29I 4G| |TG | | 6R| | |AF | | 5 4G | | |Shandong | 3 | | |DM | | 6 | | |QF | | 3 2G | | |YP | 2I 4I | | | |UA | | 2P 4P | | |LTU | | 1R 1P | | |ST | | 12 | | |SK | | 35 | | |ML | 4I | | | |LA | | 3P | | |BG | 2P | | | |Bavaria| | 2 | | |AI | | 2P | | |3Q | | 3R | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 6 30 35 16 9 10| 41 81 25 29 39 13 26 67 25| 103 11| | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 106 ) | B O E I N G ( 346 ) |MD(114)| Total by Engine Manufacturers |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| |BMW/RR | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 50 0| |CFMI | 0 30 4 0 0 10| 41 81 25 29 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |GEAE | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 32 0 16 23 0| 0 6| |IAE | 0 0 8 16 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 37 0| |P&W | 2 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 5 4 4 3 19| 12 0| |R-R | 0 0 0 0 8 0| 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 28 6| 0 0| |Unknown| 4 0 23 0 1 0| 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 13 0| 4 5| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 6 30 35 16 9 10| 41 81 25 29 39 13 26 67 25| 103 11| | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 106 ) | B O E I N G ( 346 ) |MD(114)| 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/R-R, 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). 4 Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@cris.com) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. 5 airline code: AB - Air Berlin AC - Air Canada AF - Air France AI - Air-India AZ - Alitalia BG - Biman Bangladesh BQ - EuroBelgian BR - EVA Airways CI - China AL CJ - China Northern CP - Canadian CV - Cargolux DM - Maersk GA - Garuda GE - Trans Asia GF - Gulf Air GMI- Germania HV - Transavia HY - Uzbekistan IW - AOM French IY - Yemenia JL - Japan AL JM - Air Jamaica KA - DragonAir KE - Korean Air LA - Lan-Chile LG - Luxair LH - Lufthansa LO - LOT Polish ML - Midway MS - EgyptAir MU - China Eastern NG - Lauda Air NH - All Nippon NU - Japan Transocean OS - Austrian OZ - Asiana PL - Philippine QF - Qantas SA - South African SK - SAS SQ - Singapore SV - Saudia TG - Thai Int'l TR - Transbrasil UA - United UX - Air Europa VP - VASP WN - Southwest YP - Aero Llyod 3Q - Yunnan(China) 5J - ValuJet 5X - UPS From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: 1995 Aircraft Orders - Comments and Highlights Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:30 In July, my Airbus total was only one short. In November, it was around ten short. At the end of the year, the Airbus total in my list is an astounding 32 aircraft short! Airbus claimed to have secured orders from 23 customers but I was only able to gather 13 (I know that I've missed TACA of costa Rica's order). You can make your own interpretation why such a large discrepancy occurred in such a short period of time. My Boeing total is eight short, and MD total is nine. (Boeing added quite a few orders at the end of the year, too. Nonetheless, Boeing did announce which airlines made those orders.) To match the totals published by the three manufacturers, I added three lines of "orders" from "unknown" operators. Also, there are minor discrepancies in the totals of the A320 (-4), A321 (+4), B737-3/4/500 (-6), and B737-6/7/800 (+6). Nevertheless, the overall total of narrowbody orders for each company is correct. The task of keeping track of these orders has not been easy, but a few of you have been very helpful. I intend to continue to post the list for 1996. Comments and suggestions for improving the list will be greatly appreciated. Although, I do intend to convert the list to HTML format so that I can put it on the WWW, I just can't find the time to do it yet. ========================================================================== Some of the highlights and statistics of 1995 orders: Aircraft launched: 1. B737-600 (launched by SAS with an initial order of 35, SAS ordered another 6 later on) 2. B777-300 (launched by Cathay, ANA, Thai, and Korean with a combined order of 20 plus 11 conversions from previous -200 orders) 3. MD95 (launched by ValuJet with an order of 50) 4. A340-8000 (no formal launch order, Air Canada signed up for two before it was launched) 5. A330-200 (no launch order) Major orders (worth over US$1 billion, powerplant choice in parenthesis): SAS - 35 B737-600 (CFM56) Saudia - 5 B747 (CF6) 23 B777 (GE90) 29 MD90 (V2500) 4 MD11 (CF6) ILFC - 40 B737-600 11 B737-700 3 B737-800 (CFM56) Singapore/SALE - 28 B777 (Trent 800) 6 B777 (undecided) ValuJet - 50 MD95 (BR715) Japan - 16 B747 (CF6?) 1 B767 (CF6?) Market shares (based on units): models units shares Narrowbody (less than 180 seats): A319/320 69 22.4% B737-3/4/5/6/7/800 176 57.1% MD-80/90/95 63 20.5% (To be fair to Airbus, I really should have compared A319/320 with the B737-3/4/7/800 and MD-80/90. The B737-500/600 is really competing with the MD95, only. However, I don't have a breakdown of the -3/4/500 orders.) Narrowbody (180-220 seats): A321 12 48.0% B757 13 52.0% Widebody (200-250 seats) A300/310 6 18.8% B767 26 81.2% Widebody (250-350 seats) A330/340 19 19.6% B777-200 67 69.1% MD-11 11 11.3% Widebody (over 350 seats) B777-300 25 \ B747 39 / 100.0% Other than the 180-220 seat catogory in which the B757 narrowly beat the A321, Boeing dominated in all other catogories; hence, Boeing is the undisputed winner for 1995. This is also a very good year for McD. However, if McD cannot get any major new order for the MD-11 in 1996, I'm afraid the decision to axe the MD-11 line will be imminent. Airbus needs to work doubly hard to achieve its goal to capture 50% of the market by year 2000. IMHO, Boeing will not outsell Airbus 3-to-1 in 1996 as they did in 1995, but Boeing will dominate for the forseeable future. Engine Manufacturers' market shares: (only orders with known powerplant selection are included) low-bypass (applications: MD80) JT8D-200 (100%) - 24 installed engines (12 MD80s) high-bypass less than 20,000 lb thrust (applications: MD95) BR715 (100%) - 100 installed engines (50 MD95s) 20,000 - 35,000 lb thrust (applications: MD90; A319/20/21, A340; B737) CFM56-3/5/7 ( 79%) - 460 installed engines (34 319/20/21s, 10 340s, 176 737s) V2500 ( 21%) - 122 installed engines (24 319/20/21s, 37 MD90s) 37,000 - 43,000 lb thrust (applications: B757) PW2000 ( 33%) - 8 installed engines ( 4 757s) RB.211-535 ( 67%) - 16 installed engines ( 8 757s) 50,000 - 70,000 lb thrust (applications: A300/310; B747, B767; MD11) CF6-80C2/E1 ( 76%) - 178 installed engines (32 747s, 16 767s, 6 MD11s) PW4000 ( 14%) - 32 installed engines ( 2 310s, 5 747s, 4 767s) RB.211-524 \ / 16 installed engines ( 8 747s) Trent 700 / ( 10%) \ 8 installed engines ( 8 330s) 75,000 lb thrust and over (applications: B777) GE90 ( 29%) - 46 installed engines (23 777s) PW4000 ( 28%) - 44 installed engines (22 777s) Trent 800 ( 43%) - 68 installed engines (34 777s) CFMI is the clear winner in the low-to-mid thrust range. In the high thrust range, after a dismal first half, GE is doing quite well in 1995, thanks to Saudia and JAL's year-end B747 order. (Well, I assume JAL is sticking with the CF6 for their B747 engines, but who knows!) Regardless, I'm sure GE is not pleased to see itself slipping into third place in the B777 competition. More significantly, the long-term prospect for Rolls-Royce has been greatly improved after Singapore's (as well as Malaysia's) B777 orders. From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:31 References: Distribution: In article , Jean-Francois Mezei (mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org) wrote: > Since Airbus has about 30% of the market (approx), it should be expected that > the "public opinion" might follow these numbers more or less. Hence, you might > expect about 70% of airline employees to prefer Boeing. 30%-70%, where is McD? They are not dead, yet! ;-) Irrespective of McD's market share, you have a very poor argument. For example, BMW has a very small percentage of the US automobile market (say, around 1%), does that mean only 1% of the US drivers like BMW cars more than GM or Ford cars? I don't think so. Also, pilots' like or dislike of a plane may have little consequence on the market share. At least the SQ pilots that I talked to told me that they had practically no say in SIA's decision of ordering the B777. (BTW, the market share quoted is for recent sales. There are about 1,000 Airbus planes, 5,000 Boeing planes, and 2,500 McD planes in service.) > As well, asking a 747-400 captain for his opinion on the smaller Airbus planes > is perhaps not 100% fair. Asking a 737 captain to compare a 320 would be more > fair. There is really no need for you to be so defensive. Read the subject line of this thread carefully, it's an _UNSCIENTIFIC_ survey. Why is it only fair to compare the B737 and the A320? Why is it unfair to ask whether a pilot like the A330 or the B747? This question should actually favor the Airbus, since the A330 is a newer plane than the B747. In fact, I don't think it is fair to compare the A320 and the B737, the former was first designed in the mid-80's while the latter was first designed in the mid-60's with early-80's upgrades. The most ideal comparison would be between the B777 and the A330/340. However, I did not have the opportunity to meet pilots who have experience on both, and I doubt there is a significant population of pilots who have the said experience. In my original post, I was merely stating the responses that I got from a number of pilots and first officiers. I didn't make any negative personal comment of Airbus planes. In fact, didn't I say my A330 experience as a passenger was a positive one? I tried to talk to non-American pilots to avoid possible "nationalist" attachments some American might have. Furthermore, I purposedly chose to fly an A330 so that I could at least talk to one Airbus pilot. To do so, I had to spend an extra US$200 (but that's another story that I won't go into). In addition, I had to wait an extra two hours at Taipei's CKS Airport to fly the CX A330 (I was lucky because there was an unscheduled change of aircraft, otherwise, I might have to wait an extra few hours). I could have taken an earlier CX L-1011 flight or a China Airlines B747 flight out of Taipei. If I intended to bash Airbus, I would not have gone the distance to fly the A330. It might not have been clear in my original post that the CX A330 pilot's response was not totally negative, after all, he did not say that he did not like the A330. However, his hesistation of answering my question whether he liked the B747 or the A330 made me wonder. Moreover, the SQ pilots (including two expatriates who had once piloted for other airlines) that I talked to also had experience on a wide variety of planes, namely, the B707, B727, B737, B757, B767, L-1011, DC-10, A300, and A310 in addition to the B747. Also, the ones who had previously commanded the B757 and B767 seemed to like the 57 and 67 the most. One told me that the B757 was the most fun to fly, but he thought the plane was terrible for the passengers because of its long and narrow cabin. To tell you the truth, I expected the non-American pilots would have been more positive towards Airbus planes. Thus, I was quite shocked to find the unanimous support for Boeing among the pilots that I talked to. Also, Malaysia Airlines' Chairman made a similar statement that pilots liked Boeing planes more than Airbus planes in his announcement of MAS' B777/B747 order. Therefore, I don't think it's an European/American issue. It's an Airbus/Boeing issue. From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: randl@direct.ca Subject: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust reverse useage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Direct Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:31 Perhaps someone with experience flying the DC-10-30 or -10 series could tackle this one. Why do some airlines consistently use reverse thrust on all three engines, yet in contrast, others only use #1 and #3 reverse? This may also be true on L-1011's or B-727's - the reverse thrust on the #2 engines are not as noticeable to onlookers as is the DC-10's. CAVU days to all... From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: phj947@lulu.acns.nwu.edu (Phil Jessel) Subject: Boeing 777 advances Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: NU Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:31 I remember, anecdotally, several "firsts" and such claimed by Boeing for their 777 airliner, and was wondering if anyone could confirm, deny, or add to these: -The main landing gear trucks are the largest titanium parts in the world. This may need some caveats, like "largest aerospace part" or "largest at time of launch." -Alcoa developed an aluminum alloy specifically for the 777, in cooperation with Boeing. Anyone know the alloy designation? -The 777 wing is the first to use a new, thicker airfoil. -The 777 uses more composites than any other Boeing air- liner. Less than most military planes, of course, and probably less than some Airbuses. But I do remember that the cabin floor and beams were composite. Logic would dictate that the tail surfaces and wingtips would be composite, for trickle-down effects. Is this indeed the case? -I believe the 777 is the first Boeing with laser gyros, though once again I find it hard to believe no one else did first. Same goes for flat-panel displays. Anyone know if the gyros were ring or fiber-optic? Thanks to anyone who knows and can help. Rene Carlos necrolar@merle.acns.nwu.edu Northwestern University rene_carlos@qmgate.larc.nasa.gov Langley Research Center From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: 24 hours in Seattle, Part I Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:32 I recently spent 24 hours in Seattle in pursuit of aviation-related activities. This includes material both travel and airliner-related, so I'm posting it to rec.travel.air and (if Karl agrees) sci.aeronautics. airliners. Please follow up to the appropriate newsgroup, depending on whether your followups are travel or airliner related. ****** The most important thing to know about visiting Seattle is that the Museum of Flight is open late on Thursdays. So you can see more in 24 hours if you happen to arrive on a Thursday. I arrived at Sea-Tac airport at about 3pm, got my Alamo rent a car ($22, unlimited mileage) and got to the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field at about 3:45 or so. Boeing doesn't actually make commercial aircraft at Boeing Field, but it is their delivery center, so you will often see a flight line of the latest aircraft just prior to delivery. Unfortunately, the recent Boeing strike meant that there weren't any aircraft there that I noticed. However, the #1 747, #1 757 and the #1 767 were parked at the south end of the airfield near to the Museum of Flight site. #1 767, of course, still has the massive infrared detector mounted on top (for a military project). I spent the next four hours at the Museum of Flight. I have mixed feelings about the MoF. On the one hand some of their displays are spectacular---how often do you get to see the SR-71 in mother/daughter ship configuration? (M-12/D-21) There's only one of these left in the world, and they have it. On the other hand, there's very little structure to the displays and hardly anything about commercial flight. OK, so commercial airliners are pretty large, but you'd expect photos and models at the very least, as well as a history of Boeing. I mean this is _Seattle, which owes its very existence to the commercial airliner. Still, there's a lot there to see, and I highly recommend it. Give Boeing 6 months and there'll be a full flight-line on the field to see as well. Oh, I should mention that the Museum is built around the original Boeing Red Barn, which was trucked there from its original location (now a container and car dock for the city of Seattle). It's been nicely renovated and has a lot of historical displays. Around 8pm I left the Museum, pausing to watch the departure of two Airborne Express DC-8-60 series, a UPS DC-8-70 series, and a UPS 757-200PF. I guess at least some of the overnight express companies use Boeing Field rather than Sea-Tac (though I think I saw Fedex at Sea-Tac). I headed north to Everett, about 40 minutes away, at least at that time of night. I checked into a Motel 6, a mere mile or so from Paine Field, home of the Boeing widebody plant (747/767/777 construction). Next morning I got up bright and early for the plant tour. Boeing runs these from 9-4 every weekday. During the summer they are heavily oversubscribed, and since they're first-come first-served you need to get there early. Forwarned, I showed up about 7:30 (doors open at 8:30). I needn't have worried, as it turned out, but since I was on a schedule, better safe than sorry. At 8:30 we were let into the tour center foyer, which has a bunch of photo diplays about past Boeing triumphs. At 9 we were let into the theatre, where we say a bunch of Boeing promotional films. By about 9:20 we were on a bus to see the main event, the 747 assembly hall. You exit the bus next to a subterranean service corridor which takes you to the middle of the width of the assembly hall, where you take a service elevator to a viewing deck high above the floor. This is a _large elevator, taking 45 people with ease. It's pretty mind blowing. In fact it's hard to appreciate the scale of the place---the 747 assembly line has room for three 747-400 to park diagonally _in_the_last_third_of_the_length_ alone. That is, I estimate that if they cleared everything off of that line, they could probably fit 9 or 10 of these things, parked diagonally. And that's only 1/6 or 1/7 of the total area of the place. You're also looking _down on the things, including the tails. You're given the usual gee-whiz statistics, allowed to walk around and look at both sides of the platform (the other side is a place where major components are assembled and staged for mating). Then it's back out the tunnel to the bus, and off over the bridge over route 526 to the Paine Field side of the site, with its flight line and paint sheds. As I said, there wasn't much on the flight line---one 747-400 Combi, two 767-300, and three 777-200 (two United with P&W engines, one BA with GE90s). The BA aircraft was just coming back from a test flight, and we were encouraged to note how quiet it was. Then it's back to the tour center. At the tour center I noticed flyers for something called the Museum of Flight Restoration Center at Paine Field. It wasn't originally on my list of things to see, but since I had a little extra time, I figured what the heck, and boy was a glad I went. In many ways this turned out to be the high-point of the trip. Part II describes this. RNA From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: 24 Hours in Seattle, Part II Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:33 The Museum of Flight Restoration Center is located just inside the main entrance to Paine Field in Everett, off to the right. There are a couple of fairly anonymous hangers there, so I went in one and found myself amoung a bunch of old airplanes in various stages of (dis)repair. Probably the most impressive of these is one of the original old F-8U Crusader prototypes. The folks in charge are quite relaxed. You're free to poke around, so long as you don't take anything home and don't hurt anything (or yourself). It was interesting, if not wildly so, and I meandered aimlessly for a while. Then I spied what appeared to be part of an New Zealand RAF Vampire up on a rack, so I wandered over to one of the guys in charge and asked him about it. He showed me the rest of the Vampire but soon admitted that his real interest was commercial aviation (clearly a man after my own heart) and happened to let drop that the Restoration Center has a DeHavilland Comet 4C "out the back". "Huh? A Comet, here?" "Yep" Boggle. "Can I see it?" "You can go on board if you like." So we went out the back and there it was, an ex-Mexicana Comet 4C from the dawn of the jet-age, resprayed into old BOAC colors. It's a tragic story, actually. This and a sister ship (that, for a long time, was stored at O'Hare by the Smithsonian, before being broken up for want of sufficient funds) were the pride of the Mexicana fleet. The Comet 4C was built specifically for Mexicana, a high-performance model that could take off from hot-and-high Mexico City airport and make Madrid nonstop. In 1978, Mexicana flew the craft to Paine Field, where the new owner hoped to use it for charters. Somehow this fell through and the airplane sat unattended on the field for 15 years. Nasty things happen in a wet climate in such a situation. Water got in, and the rain and sun did their worst. When the aircraft was finally towed to the Restoration Center and opened up, every internal surface of this once pristine aircraft was covered with green slime. Heartbreaking. Corrosion and rot have afflicted the entire aircraft. Anyway, Mr Robert Hood and his colleagues have been steadily working on this aircraft, trying to restore the interior to the way it was when delivered. All the seats have been removed, the interior is being cleaned, and the cockpit being renovated. When I visited the aircraft, several floor panels were also out, meaning that in places I had to step from floor beam to floor beam to walk the length of the aircraft. The Comet, of course, was the very first jet airliner in commercial service, entering service in 1952, I believe, a 6-7 years before the 707. DeHavilland payed for being the technology leader when the Comet I suffered a series of catastrophic hull failures resulting from stress fractures around the sharp edges of its rectangular windows and rectangular cutouts. It was withdrawn from service in 1954, and the Comet only returned in its Mark 4 model in 1958, shortly before the 707 entered service. The Comet 4C was never a commercial success---only 75 were sold. It's nonetheless a fascinating aircraft. The Comet pioneered multi-axle landing gear (bogey landing gear). The link between the axles, unfortunately, was prone to break if subjected to tight radius turns, which could result in the landing gear strut punching a hole in the tarmac. Special wide- radius turns were painted on many airport taxi-ways, with the label "Comet". The distinctive feature of the Comet, of course, was that its four engines were buried in the wings (the Soviets copied this feature in many of their early jet designs) close to the fuselage. This meant that the landing gear, located _outboard of the engines, could not fold up into the fuselage, as in most modern designs. So, instead, they folded the otherway (outward) into the wing. The 4C also had extra fuel tanks in bulbous tanks about 3/4 the way out the wing. DeHavilland also built the airplane to survive a bellylanding, since DeHavilland aircraft historically had trouble with landing gear that wouldn't extend. So out under the gas tanks, and also on the tail, are fibreglass fairings. Under the belly is a steel plate. In the event of a wheels up landing, the fairings scrape off to reveal small tires to protect the wingtips. The aircraft will then skid along on its belly plate and its auxiliary wheels, with the expectation of a return to service within a week. Given the engines are in the wing, they're in no particular danger of being damaged. What else? The cockpit---five places, four of them functional. Pilot, Copilot, Engineer, Navigator. Navigation by dead-reckoning available through a periscope sextant through the ceiling of the cockpit. Sight a star, read your chronometer, plot your position and steer accordingly. The nose, of course, is identical to that of a Caravelle---the French licensed the design. In any event, as you can tell, this is quite an airplane, and an experience not to be missed if you do any aviation tourism in the Seattle area. I'm not sure that you can count on going aboard this thing, I think I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. If you really want to see the machine, advance arrangement wouldn't hurt, I suspect. This is by no means the only interesting commercial artifact at the Restoration Center. Their other impressive displays are the #1 727 and a Boeing 247 (pre DC-3 airliner) in _flying condition. The Restoration Center is, in fact, an approved FAA maintenance facility for the Boeing 247, not surprisingly the only such facility in the world! The 247 has been restored to its 1935 condition, and is gorgeous inside and out. There's also another SR-71 cockpit section, recovered from a wreck. Anyway, after this wholly unexpected pleasure, I set off back south to return to Sea-Tac airport. However, I went via I-405 rather than I-5 and checked out Renton on the way. Renton is where Boeing builds the 737 and 757. There are, unfortunately, no public tour of the Renton facility. However the gift store is there on Park Dr, so I went in an bought myself some airline geek stuff. It's on the corner of Park and 757(!) Having nothing better to do, I drove into Renton airport, and followed a service road around. Boeing Renton is just across a small river from Renton Field, and a bridge joins the two, over which airplanes are towed. I followed the (public) service road around until it deadended---said dead end _being the aforementioned bridge. There was unfortunately little else to see. The Renton flightline was event more depleted than the Everett one, only a single 737 evident, still in "green" (the skin panels have protective vinyl coating on them during construction, which gives the aircraft a metallic green color). I returned to Sea-Tac airport. Incidently, Sea-Tac is itself one of the better airports for watching airplanes, since its terminals have an excellent view of the parallel takeoff and landing runways. And that's how I spent 24 hours of aviation tourism in Seattle. RNA From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "A. Kevin Rodriguez" Subject: Re: Snow planning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TASC, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:33 David Lesher wrote: > So WHY did they abandon such large portions of the fleet in the > Ground Zero airports? Why not ferry them anywhere of the area ahead > of time? Then they'd at least be available for use -- as it was, they > cancelled 33% of all domestic flights; I'd guess at least a third > were due to equipment shortfalls. So the idea would be to move the planes from these airports to places out of the storm? The only way the airline could do this with no additional expense would be to depart with loaded planes and cancel incoming flights which could be revenue producing. (Why would you ferry the plane anywhere? This tells me the plane could depart. Do it full.) Then once the impacted airport is re-opened you have to ferry the plane back if you want to get back up to speed ASAP. Allowing for scheduled flights to arrive could be why most airlines took several days to bring service up to speed. But up here in Boston there were a lot of people waiting to depart. (Wearing my mail-order dispatcher's hat) If the planes are left at "ground-zero", they will be able to bring those scheduled departures back on-line a lot sooner and with fewer people waiting in the terminal. If 33% of your daily domestic departures are effected by the storm, what good is having 95% of your fleet available? Yes, I know it's $M of lost revenues every day but it's a SNOW STORM. They don't last for ever. It's not like in Kuwait during the Guld War where the plane could be out of commission for months if it didn't get bombed. Are there any dispatchers from Canada out there who could offer some expertise on planning for snow storms? How about anyone who's responsible for flights to Buffalo, NY? __________________________________________ A. Kevin Rodriguez (AKRodriguez@TASC.com) The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC) Reading, Massachusetts From kls Thu Jan 18 14:50:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Snow planning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 96 14:50:34 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>So WHY did they abandon such large portions of the fleet in the >>Ground Zero airports? Why not ferry them anywhere of the area ahead >>of time? Then they'd at least be available for use -- > >I don't know about the other airlines, but United got most of their >planes out, ending up with only 17 stranded at snowed-in airports. >Many were sitting at O'Hare, but that's because they didn't have any >place to fly them, not because they *couldn't* fly them. Some that Another factor could be running out of space where they moved them to. Here at SFO, the Line Maintenance ramp, normally near empty during the day was almost full of 747, 757s, and 767s that would noramlly be flying the transcon routes. I suspect we had planes parked on just about every bit of ramp space available at ORD. About the only place with lots of parking space available is the A concourse at DEN (CO's and currently mostly unused). :-) -- -- Larry Stone lstone@interserve.com My opinions, not United's. Note for rec.gambling groups - I'm posting from Interserve, not Interserv. From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Airbus A320 flight controls Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:10 Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA In a recent exchange of postings in rec.travel.air several people have mentioned conplaints of a lack of proper force feedback in the Airbus A320 sidestick control. Could someone who is familiar with the system please describe it briefly? In particular, does it work by sensing force or by sensing movement? Roughly how much force does it take to operate it? If the stick moves, where is the pivot point in relation to the pilots hand and what is the range of movement and force gradient? I am also interested in any pros and cons of the device. Thanking you in anticipation, Peter Wezeman From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aschonla@cicresearch.com Subject: Airbus bashing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:10 Organization: Data Transfer Group It is an absolute pleasure to watch this rather quiet and sedate group. The Airbus bashing going on in rec.travel.air is becoming tiresome and possibly a place where lawyers soon will tread. The story all began with the terrible AA crash in Cali....and now has degenerated into a sort of "Airbus crashes more than Boeing" thing. If you have not read/watched any of it, you might agree with me (once you have) that the group's monitoring is out of control. What amazes me is how people sign their names at the bottom and include their company information. Some of these companies are in the aviation business! I wonder what HQ thinks of all these postings...do they perhaps reflect some sort of policy? I wonder.... Best regards, Addison Schonland Phone: (619) 637-4000 Fax: (619) 637-4040 From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: AA MD-11 tail tip Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:10 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) It has been reported recently that an American Airlines MD-11, being prepped for delivery to FedEx, fell on its tail while being fueled. A maintenance stand chopped the control surfaces off of the horizontal stabilizer as it fell to the ground. I believe this incident took place at their maintenance facility in Tulsa. Does anybody know more about this? Tail number? Date? DO TELL! From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: FedEx 727 order/MD-10 study Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:11 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) FedEx has ordered five ex-Western/Delta jets for delivery early this year with scheduled service entry beginning late summer/early fall 1996. The aircraft are all 727-247 Advanced, tail numbers N2822W through N2826W. FedEx is also rumored to be studying, along with MDC, a 2-man cockpit conversion of their DC-10 fleet (dubbed the 'MD-10'). The goal of these conversions is to make the DC-10 look and feel like an MD-11. Any thoughts from anybody on this? As old as their DC-10s are getting (20+), it seems investing in MD-11s might be more economical. Comments? From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) Subject: North Atlantic Tracks [LONG] Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:11 Organization: Idaho State University There has been some discussion lately on the 'net about the North Atlantic track system, and since I recently had the opportunity to cross the Atlantic (as a passenger, alas) I have found more about the system which I would like to share. This information is compiled from Jeppesen charts and discussions with airline flight crews. The North Atlantic Plotting Chart and the Atlantic Orientation Chart are the most useful. What I am writing here applies to airliners and business jets. One 'netter crossed the Atlantic in a Cessna 182 a couple of years ago, and the procedures he outlined were different. (I think it was Dave Rogers but my memory is fading. It was a very interesting article.) Most of the North Atlantic is classified as MNPS airspace, that is, Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications. To fly in this airspace between FL275 and FL400, the aircraft and aircrew must be certified to meet certain navigation performance standards. In practice, this means two separate acceptable forms of long range navigation equipment (INS, Omega, and now certain GPS installations), high frequency (HF) radios, and the like. There is one route which has continuous VHF radio coverage, but this takes you pretty far out of the way. On the other hand, if you want to take your J3 to England, this is probably the route you'd have to take. Since there is little or no radar coverage, controllers have to use non-radar procedures and separation standards of 60 miles (laterally) are the rule. Controllers use a Mach number technique to keep aircraft separated as well. The basic idea seems to be not to run up the tailpipe of the airplane ahead. Each position report is supposed to include the aircraft's Mach number, so the controllers have some warning of any possible loss of separation. The North Atlantic Track system (NAT) changes daily based on the weather and winds aloft. There are two big packs of airplanes crossing, one eastbound and one westbound, and I think it is very difficult to go against the flow because all of the desirable altitudes -- FL310, FL330, FL350, FL370, and FL390 -- are taken. (Remember that above FL290 the usual vertical separation is 2000 feet.) The packs travel at different times of day, with eastbound flights leaving North America in the early evening for an early morning arrival in Europe, and westbound flights leaving Europe in the late morning and arriving in North America in the afternoon. Shanwick control prepares a "route message" each day and transmits it via VHF radio, teletype, and fax to operators. This lists the day's routes. A route typically starts at a domestic fix at the departure end and terminates at a domestic fix at the arrival end. Thus, my flight from London Gatwick to Cincinnati flew a route through UK domestic airspace (ACORN DCT BPK [vor] DCT ROBIN DCT POL [vor] DCT MARGO), crossed, and joined the Canadian domestic airspace system at an intersection called LAKES. The oceanic route is specified by indicating the latitude where it crosses each 10 degree longitude line, with direct in between. Thus, coming back to North America we flew MARGO 59N010W 61N020W 62N030W 62N040W 61N050W 59N060W LAKES. I have the whole route message for the eastbound trip on 29 December. It is a little long so I will only mention some of the highlights. Track U ("uniform") began at BANCS, a fix over the Grand Banks of the tip of Newfoundland, and proceeded via "46/50 48/40 49/30 50/20 50/15" and terminated at KENUK, a fix just south of the southwestern tip of Ireland. Here, "46/50" means "46N050W", etc. On the same day, track T ("tango") started at COLOR (the tip of Newfoundland) and proceeded via "47/50 49/40 50/30 51/20 51/15" to GIPER, which is 60NM north of KENUK. Notice that each fix on route T is 1 degree (60 nautical miles) north of the corresponding fix for U: T crosses 40W at latitude 49N, while U crosses at latitude 48N. On 29 December the northernmost route was Q, passing through 54/20, while the southernmost was Z, passing through 44/20. Not all of the routes are parallel: for example, a flight from Atlanta to London would not be parallel to a flight from Atlanta to Rome, which might have used track Y passing through "31/60 32/50 35/40 37/30 38/20 38/15". (I am just guessing here, but Rome is at about 42N, so this route makes more sense than one through, say, 54/15. Route W terminated at approximately 41/15, so it is another possibility.) However on 13 October track U went from COLOR to DOLIP (the next fix north of GIPER) via 47/50 49/40 51/30 52/20 and 52/15. So you see there is a big difference Emergency procedures are also of interest here. Since HF communications are difficult, and since speed is used as a separation criterion, it is difficult for an aircraft which has, say, shut down an engine to inform the controllers, and it is imperative that the aircraft move away from its assigned track so as not to lose separation with trailing traffic. The general procedures are to climb 1000' and turn 90 degrees from the track. Special procedures are needed for supersonic aircraft, because at Concorde speeds it is not possible to turn without crossing the next track over. Aircraft in this airspace leave their transponders on and squawk 2000. They are assigned a new squawk code by the domestic controlling agency after the crossing. Other oceanic route structures are more rigid. For example, southbound flights along the coast of Portugal or Africa follow a non-varying route structure, as do flights crossing the Pacific. I'm not sure why the Atlantic route structure has this flexibility, and I wonder if it is a relic of the Cold War, since most of the states bordering the Atlantic were NATO members and thus more inclined to cooperate. Jim Wolper (Commercial Pilot ASEL AMEL CFII) Department of Mathematics Idaho State University From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Factors affecting A320 US record. References: <4djlvf$fv9@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <821977208.10600@chequers.plsys.co.uk> <1996Jan19.113759@France.Sun.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:12 In article <1996Jan19.113759@France.Sun.COM>, Steve McKinty - SunSoft ICNC Grenoble wrote: >>I believe that at this point in time, on a cultural level, Europeans are >>rather more naive to the threats of highly automated systems, on an order of >>the "gee whiz" mentality in the United States in the 50s and 60s. This is no >>doubt reflected in the airline industry. > >I doubt it. As far as I know the control software for the A320/30/40 was >written in the US by US companies, Really? I once wrote an article for The Economist about computer risks, at which time I received reams of information from some French outfit that claimed to be writing the A320 flight control software. Does anyone know for sure? It's at this point that we should really move this discussion to sci.aeronautics.airliners, where it belongs. So I am crossposting it there. RNA From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Robert M. McCullough" Subject: Re: DC-8 Super 71/72/73 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: FYI Networks Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:12 Daniel G. Sharpes wrote: > > Douglas mod'ed the DC-8 with the CFM56 engines, much > as the US Air Force did with their KC-135R. When they > re-engined the KC-135, though, the Air Force included an > engine-out compensation system to improve directional > control during takeoff. > > Did Douglas (or Cammacorp) include a similar kind of > compensation system on the Super 71, 72 or 73? To the best of my knowledge Dan there was not a similar system added to the DC-8 re-engined aircraft. Bob From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@ibm.net Subject: Re: Boeing 777 advances References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@ibm.net Organization: All Things Schweinlike, Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:12 >-I believe the 777 is the first Boeing with laser gyros, >though once again I find it hard to believe no one else >did first. Same goes for flat-panel displays. Anyone >know if the gyros were ring or fiber-optic? The 767 has ring laser gyros so the 777 isn't the first if that is the type it has. Never heard of a fiber-optic aircraft gyro; how does it work and what aircraft currently use them? From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 advances References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:13 In article , phj947@lulu.acns.nwu.edu (Phil Jessel) writes: > > -I believe the 777 is the first Boeing with laser gyros, > though once again I find it hard to believe no one else > did first. Same goes for flat-panel displays. Anyone > know if the gyros were ring or fiber-optic? The 757 had ring laser gyros from Honeywell and was the first civilian airliner with them, so the 777 was not first. Honeywell had many of the patents on the RLG in the late 70's when I first worked with them as a college co-op. Not sure if the 777 gyros are of fiber-optic construction or not. LCD panels have only recently advanced to the point where they could replace CRTs for glass cockpits. Key parameters include temperature of operation, dot pitch, viewing angle, and uniformity and intensity of backlighting. Remember that the instruments must have sunlight visibility (try that with your laptop). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 advances References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:13 I am sure the experts will, as usual, find a way to refute what I am saying, but I beleive that the DC-9s belonging to NW and which were rebuilt at the AC facility now have composite floors as well. A friend of mine who worked on that line told me that the panels used were honeycomb. (whether metal or composite, I am not sure). Then again, DC-9s are not Boeing. > -The 777 uses more composites than any other Boeing air- > liner. Less than most military planes, of course, > and probably less than some Airbuses. But I do remember > that the cabin floor and beams were composite. Logic > would dictate that the tail surfaces and wingtips would > be composite, for trickle-down effects. Is this indeed > the case? From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 advances References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:13 In article , phj947@lulu.acns.nwu.edu (Phil Jessel) wrote: > I remember, anecdotally, several "firsts" and such claimed > by Boeing for their 777 airliner, and was wondering if > anyone could confirm, deny, or add to these: > > -The main landing gear trucks are the largest titanium > parts in the world. This may need some caveats, like > "largest aerospace part" or "largest at time of launch." I don't know about the largest titanium parts in the WORLD. The 777's landing gear is the largest single gear ASSEMBLY ever used on a commercial jetliner. > -Alcoa developed an aluminum alloy specifically for the > 777, in cooperation with Boeing. Anyone know the alloy > designation? I do know a new, stronger and lighter alloy was developed, but I don't know if it was exclusively for Boeing. Hopefully, one of the engineers that reads this group can provide the designation. > -The 777 uses more composites than any other Boeing air- > liner. Less than most military planes, of course, > and probably less than some Airbuses. But I do remember > that the cabin floor and beams were composite. Logic > would dictate that the tail surfaces and wingtips would > be composite, for trickle-down effects. Is this indeed > the case? The 777 does contain more composite structure than any other Boeing jetliner. The floor beams are composite, as is the structure inside the horizontal tail, along with many of the control surfaces and non-pressurized body and wing fairings. > -I believe the 777 is the first Boeing with laser gyros, > though once again I find it hard to believe no one else > did first. Same goes for flat-panel displays. Anyone > know if the gyros were ring or fiber-optic? Ring-laser gyros have been around since the 757-767-A310 were introduced. The 777 uses a new-generation flat-panel LCD display, which has considerable advantages over the CRT flat-panel displays used in the 757, 767, 747-400, and 737-300/400/500. C. Marin Faure Video Services, The Boeing Company (opinions/satements are my own) author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bylsma@unixg.ubc.ca (Dieder Bylsma) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 advances References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of British Columbia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:13 >-Alcoa developed an aluminum alloy specifically for the >777, in cooperation with Boeing. Anyone know the alloy >designation? As I recall it was mentioned on PBS on the show 'Making of the 21st Century Jet' and was an Aluminum-Lithium alloy. Some problems were had with its cracking and chipping when it came to being rivetted which is why they ended up not using it for some areas that they had originally planned. (Even though the chipping/cracking wasn't deemed to be a risk, they decided to not go ahead with it for simplicity and maintenance's sake) End result was to increase structural weight 250lbs over what it could have been with the Al-Li alloy. -- bylsma@unixg.ubc.ca From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@ibm.net Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust reverse useage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@ibm.net Organization: All Things Schweinlike, Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:14 I know at the airline(s) I've worked, standard procedure is to always use the T/R's on every engine on which they're functional upon every landing. Even on the 747 they use all four engine T/R's at every landing. I suspect you may just have witnessed an aircraft with an MEL'd (and temporarily deactivated) T/R in the No. 2 position. From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rparpatt@uniserve.com Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust reverse useage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UNIServe Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:14 In article , randl@direct.ca says... > >Perhaps someone with experience flying the DC-10-30 or -10 series could >tackle this one. Why do some airlines consistently use reverse thrust >on all three engines, yet in contrast, others only use #1 and #3 reverse? > >This may also be true on L-1011's or B-727's - the reverse thrust on >the #2 engines are not as noticeable to onlookers as is the DC-10's. > >CAVU days to all... One of the reasons they don't use #2 thrust reverse on the DC10 all the time can be the location that they are in. If the airline is flying into a foreign base where they either have a quick turn around time, or they don't have readily available maintenance, they may choose not to use #2 reverse because if it gets stuck open, that is the hardest engine to work on because of its height off of the ground. Because they don't use that reverser all of the time, it is also probably the one that would cause a maintenance problem. Also, it is not really needed at most airports as they have plenty of runway. Thrust reversers are a bonus, the plane must be capable of stopping safely with no thrust reversers. Those are my opinions anyway. Any DC10 pilots or mechanics? From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust reverse useage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:14 In article , randl@direct.ca writes >Perhaps someone with experience flying the DC-10-30 or -10 series could >tackle this one. Why do some airlines consistently use reverse thrust >on all three engines, yet in contrast, others only use #1 and #3 reverse? > >This may also be true on L-1011's or B-727's - the reverse thrust on >the #2 engines are not as noticeable to onlookers as is the DC-10's. > >CAVU days to all... > I seem to remember that there was occassionally a problem with the reversers on the aircraft (I flew them for 4 years). Not a major problem, but one where the reverser did not fully stow after cancellation. On the wing-mounted engines, there was no problem sorting it out, but on the tail mounted engine, there was the problem of getting access, especially in airfields that did not have the correct equipment. regards -- Pete Finlay in the South of England pete@meads.demon.co.uk paf3@student.open.ac.uk Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust reverse useage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:14 randl@direct.ca wrote: > Why do some airlines consistently use reverse thrust >on all three engines, yet in contrast, others only use #1 and #3 reverse? Speculation: the high-placement of the #2 engine on the DC-10 means that reversing it tends to lift the nose-wheel? >This may also be true on L-1011's or B-727's - the reverse thrust on >the #2 engines are not as noticeable to onlookers as is the DC-10's. Actually, a reversed #2 on a 727 is easy to spot when you see the plane in profile- you can see right through the exhaust nozzle when the reverser is activated. I don't think I've ever happened to spot a 727 landing w/o reversing #2 (unless no reverse thrust was used at all), and in fact I *have* seen some 727s landing with ONLY #2 reversed. In addition, airlines that power-back their 727's from the gate (American and TWA, for example) do so using only #2 in reverse thrust. (since the reverse blast from #2 is directed to the sides rather than upward and downward, it doesn't kick up debris from the ramp). -- 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 Mon Jan 22 03:24:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Snow planning 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 Jan 96 03:24:15 lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) writes: >Another factor could be running out of space where they moved them to. {} >About the only place with lots of parking space available is the A >concourse at DEN (CO's and currently mostly unused). :-) Well, there's always ?Gimli? ;-}.... And how about the never-built jetport in the Everglades? Or Stapleton.... ;-} I've no doubt SFO was full, but I bet if push comes to shove, you can out 'em somewhere. Heck, the Flyboys are short of money; bet you can rent space at Wright Pat, etc.... -- 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........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@ibm.net Subject: Re: Snow planning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@ibm.net Organization: All Things Schweinlike, Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:15 I imagine they didn't fly the aircraft elsewhere because they had the aircraft necessary to fly their other scheduled flights to/from other cities on their routes. Having extras sitting in cities where there are no flights for them to take would be of no use. Also although many flight get delayed for long hours in bad weather, eventually the weather lets up and then all those angry people had better have a plane to take them where they were supposed to go hours before. This is of course not taking into account maintenance checks that were scheduled to be done at that station irregardless of weather and the nightmare that would become Crew Scheduling if suddenly crews had to start ferrying empty aircraft all over the system. Although it may seem strange, it's much easier to leave them there, deice after the storm and send them on their way. From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeromed@goodnet.com (Jerome Dawson) Subject: Re: Snow planning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jeromed@goodnet.com Organization: DocuMedia Technology, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:15 It's possible I missed it being mentioned here but many airlines suspended service to those cities in the path of the blizzard to avoid stranding passengers, particularly "thru" passengers at hubs. That's not so much out of a sense of charity as it is a way to avoid some nasty expenses. You strand passengers, you find accomodations for them. That can be a pricey proposition when you cancel one flight. When all the airlines are doing it at once in the same city, those hotel rooms you've contracted special rates for (for just such emergencies) fill up fast. The situation at those customer service counters can get ugly real fast in a situation like that. JD From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Snow planning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:15 "A. Kevin Rodriguez" wrote: > >So the idea would be to move the planes from these airports to places >out of the storm? The only way the airline could do this with no >additional expense would be to depart with loaded planes and cancel >incoming flights which could be revenue producing. I take it you've never plowed snow? I say that because I feel you're totally overlooking the problems and expenses of plowing, deicing, etc., when aircraft are left at snowed-in airports. Let me make it clear that I, personally, have never plowed an airport, but have certainly plowed snow, and have ridden in airport plows while they were clearing the field, etc. It is a serious, time-consuming, expensive proposition to work around parked aircraft, and once that's been done with the big equipment, smaller units, and even hand-operated ones (sometimes referred to as "shovels") need to be used, raising the time and costs still further. Then you have to clear the snow off of the planes and deice them, which, of course, causes still more problems. From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@Eisner.DECUS.ORG (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Snow planning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:16 In article , "A. Kevin Rodriguez" writes: > Are there any dispatchers from Canada out there who could offer some > expertise on planning for snow storms? How about anyone who's > responsible for flights to Buffalo, NY? Disclaimer; i am not a dispatcher, and my reputation as a total idiot who doesn't knwo what he hs talking about is well made. The situation in Canada is quite different from that of the northeast USA. First, the only two real pivotal hubs (Vancouver and Toronto) rarely get such big storms, and while the Maritimes do get a lot of snow, their levels of traffic 1- allows more time between flighst to clear runways - if shutdown, don't affect the rest of the airlines operations THAT MUCH. When a major airport is shutdown in Canada, it is rarely for more than a few hours. What does cause havock are freezing rain storms for which no amount of snow clearing equipment can help. Furthermore, because of lower traffic levels, anciliary equipment such as de-icing units are not stretched beyound their capacities. If you de-ice an aircraft which then has to wait in line to take-off, and just as it reaches runway, it needs to be de-iced again, it adds to traffic congestion. When there is little traffic, such problems do not snowball into a logjam of traffic. It would be interesting to know exactly what causes an airport to "shutdown" as opposed to reduce the frequency of takeoff/landings. From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: andelin@clinet.fi (Jan-Erik Andelin) Subject: MD80 WWW Homepage features accidents Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:16 My International MD80 WWW Homepage has been updated with references to air accidents and incidents with MD80's involved. The MD80 Operators' Index is also continuously updated. Find the main MD80 page at: http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/md80.htm I appreciate any comments, updates, questions to the page you may have. -- erkki -- Jan-Erik Andelin * phone +358-15-584 622 Agatan 63 * e-mail andelin@clinet.fi 06100 Borga, Finland * WWW http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/ From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: 'Gas' used in tires of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:16 In bernhard@eurecom.fr (Christoph Bernhardt) writes: >A friend of mine recently claimed that airliner tires are filled with >a special gas not just with normal (compressed) air. Is this true? Yes, air contains 20% oxygen, just like what goes in a diesel engine. Pressurize it to about 15 atmospheres, add some fuel such as vapors from a very hot tire, and you have an explosion. Just like a diesel, you don't even need a spark. The FAA has required 100% nitrogen (the other ~80% of air) to be used in large aircraft tires since about 1974. This was not a worldwide rule due to FAA lack of authority. In about 1985, a foreign 727-200 took off from Mexico City with about 170 pax, air in the tires, and a badly dragging brake. Due to the hot, high conditions at MEX, the 727 climbs only 500fpm until the gear and flaps are up, so the gear comes up right after liftoff. This time, however, the dragging brake continued to heat the tire in the wheel well until it exploded, bringing the plane down with total loss. The above is what I remember from the NTSB report. I believe that nitrogen is now a worldwide requirement, but not sure. You cannot guarantee that all carriers everywhere never use air, so keep that in mind when making your travel plans. BTW, the only reason to use more expensive helium rather than nitrogen, would be the difference in weight. Helium, like nitrogen, is inert, so safe. It costs about $25 a year to carry a pound on an airliner, so there would be some savings with helium. You would have to weigh its advantages, so to speak. Ralph From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 'Gas' used in tires of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:16 In article , Christoph Bernhardt wrote: >A friend of mine recently claimed that airliner tires are filled with >a special gas not just with normal (compressed) air. Is this true? He >claims that in this special gas nitrogen is replaced by helium to >avoid some adverse effects if a tire should get too hot or even burn. The tires, and the shock struts for that matter, are filled with nitrogen. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: 'Gas' used in tires of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:17 Christoph Bernhardt (bernhard@eurecom.fr) wrote: : A friend of mine recently claimed that airliner tires are filled with : a special gas not just with normal (compressed) air. Is this true? He : claims that in this special gas nitrogen is replaced by helium to : avoid some adverse effects if a tire should get too hot or even burn. : Just wondering... At BA we use nitrogen in all tyres as does everyone else. I remember when I worked on an Aer Lingus SD360 seeing a graph that calculated how much oxygen was in the tyre if compressed air was used instead. Nitrogen is used because it is inert and fairly cheap as it makes up 78 % of the atmosphere. -- Ian Judge _|_ ian@judgei.demon.co.uk _____(_)_____ ! ! ! From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jay Biederman Subject: Re: 'Gas' used in tires of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Multiverse Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:17 Christoph, If I remember correctly, aircraft tires are inflated with pure nitrogen. The reason for this is that the tire pressure, when inflated with nitrogen, is consistent over a large temperature range. Jay Biederman jbb@mail.multiverse.com From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeromed@goodnet.com (Jerome Dawson) Subject: Re: 'Gas' used in tires of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jeromed@goodnet.com Organization: DocuMedia Technology, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:17 In article , bernhard@eurecom.fr says... >A friend of mine recently claimed that airliner tires are filled with >a special gas not just with normal (compressed) air. Is this true? He >claims that in this special gas nitrogen is replaced by helium to >avoid some adverse effects if a tire should get too hot or even burn. My understanding is that most tires are filled with 100% Nitrogen. I haven't heard of helium being used. That would be a bit pricey I think. And yes, a big reason is to help prevent in-flight tire fires due to overheated brakes. The wheels usually incorporate "blow-out" plugs in case tire pressure rises too high and inert gas helps prevent or slow tire fires. I seem to recall a Caravelle crash back in the sixties that was traced to a tire fire and explosion. Jerome From kls Mon Jan 22 03:24:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: Re: Air France Smoking "Policy" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The American University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 03:24:17 In article kalia@sludge.chem.nwu.edu (R. Kalia) writes: > >In article <4d3s7j$qtj@kragar.kei.com>, JW6191A@american.edu. says... >> >>On a recent Air France A340 flight from Paris CDG to Washington IAD, I >>noticed that the smoking section of the Tempo, or economy class, was in >>the middle third of the cheap seats, leaving a non-smoking section between >>the smokers and the aft area of the plane... > >Some months ago I read something about the ventilation on newer (and >larger?) planes being such that the middle was the best place for the smoking >section. I am not sure I believe this, but it fits the fact that your >experience was on an A340. Perhaps someone at sci.aeronautics will know >about cabin ventilation? Anybody know anything on this? From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: McDonnell Douglas loss due to write-off of MD-11 losses Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:35 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Friday's Wall Street Journal (and Saturday's Los Angeles Times) reported that McDonnell Douglas wrote off $1.84 billion of deferred costs from the development of the MD-11. MD had been amortizing the MD-11's development costs over 301 aircraft, which according to the WSJ was the minimum number MD had expected to sell. However, firm orders total only 168 aircraft, of which 147 have already been delivered. Options amount to only another 60 aircraft. According to the LA Times, analyst Paul Nisbet "said the change was a 'prudent' action and 'something they would have had to clean up whether they had any intention or not' of shedding the MD-11 program." McDonnell Douglas said the company "most definitely does not" plan to stop building the MD-11. However, the write-off and the weak order book are painful reminders that the MD-11 has not done well in the market against its primary competitors, the Boeing 777 and Airbus A340. Without a significant order soon, MD will have to either stop building MD-11s or build an inventory of "white tails". -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: An un-scientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The American University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:35 In article Andrew Chuang writes: > >In this and other related newsgroups, most people seem to like Boeing's >planes much better than Airbus's... I just flew an Air France A340 (built May 1995) from Paris to Washington and was amazed at the number of glitches during the flight. We were late departing because a cockpit computer refused to normalize -- we had to be towed back to the gate so a technician could swap it out for another. This on a plane that was already a substitute for another that couldn't fly for some reason. The cabin crew took forever to get the safety video rolling because of some flaw in that system. The passenger service "bell" chime rang every few minutes throughout most of the flight, apparently as the result of some malfunction. A group of seats couldn't get audio through headphones for a while. Several passengers couldn't get their reading lights to go on or off, in spite of repeated button-pushing by cabin crew. Row number lights were randomly burned out, as were the no-smoking lights that were supposed to be lit above certain seats (granted, light bulbs are normal wear and tear items, but they are apparently buring out faster than they can be replaced -- this doesn't seem normal). Any thoughts? From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Niccolai Murphy Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Aerostructures Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:35 Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > In article , Andrew Chuang writes: > > In this and other related newsgroups, most people seem to like Boeing's > > planes much better than Airbus's. Since these newsgroups are dominated by > > US audience, I was curious whether people from other parts of the world > > share the same view. > > Since Airbus has about 30% of the market (approx), it should be expected that > the "public opinion" might follow these numbers more or less. Hence, you might > expect about 70% of airline employees to prefer Boeing. > > As well, asking a 747-400 captain for his opinion on the smaller Airbus planes > is perhaps not 100% fair. Asking a 737 captain to compare a 320 would be more > fair. Actually Andrew Chuang's point is that, in this case >>>public opinion<<< as you refer to it, consists of a largely US population since that is the largest component of the internet population. So the 70/30 split doesnt really apply. From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsjames@ix.netcom.com (Gary S. James ) Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:36 As the guy who wrote the original "A320 Comments" posting several months ago, I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth... I have been surveying the guys at my airline, especially those who have flown both the A320 and the 757. Generally, the feeling is that the pilots and maintenance people prefer the Boeing product but acknowledge that Airbus has incorporated several features that are superior to their Boeing counterpart. I would agree with this. I've now been flying the line with the A320 for 5 months now and have been keeping copious notes on both the positives (there are many) and the negatives (there are also many) of the A320 vs Boeing and Douglas airliners that I have personally flown. In about a month or so, I'll write a followup article to air my opinions. As an aerospace engineer, ATP, and the former project manager of the F-16 Block 50 Cockpit for General Dynamics (now Lockheed) I have very definite opinions on the subject. I'll bet that not everyone will agree with them all. HA! -- Curved Air Technologies GSJames@ix.netcom.com Gary S. James 70264.2530@CompuServe.com PO Box 1474 tel: (817) 596-3278 Weatherford, TX. 76086-1474 (800) 377-3618 Aircraft Design, Analysis and Consulting From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rparpatt@uniserve.com Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UNIServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:36 In article , jheilig@gate.net says... > > >All I can say is, Boeing has been building airliners since 1956. 1956???? Try again. I think that you are out by several decades. From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Nicolas E. Murat" Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:36 On 10 Jan 1996, Jennings Heilig wrote: > > All I can say is, Boeing has been building airliners since 1956. Airbus > is a committee (at best). Boeing listens to it's customers, Airbus > treats them like it's the customer's privilege to buy airplanes from > Airbus. Saying that Airbus treats its customers like it's a privilege to buy Airplanes from them is a little unsubstantiated. Especially if you do not seem to ever have to have worked with them (sorry if I am wrong). Using ONE 2nd/3rd hand account story from Fed Ex is also not a strong criteria. As a matter of fact, Airbus does as much as it can to accomodate Fed Ex. The A300 and A310 budgets have been completely slashed as those models are not requiring any further development and will be replaced in the near future. This holds for almost all the airlines, EXCEPT Fed Ex. Because of the growth in air freight carriers, Airbus regards Fed EX an important customer and has gone head over heels several times to accomodate. In the incident you describe below, I do not think that Airbus purposely decided to paint the planes a different scheme just to spite Fed Ex. Stupid mistake that sure did annoy FDX - granted. But it is no example of how the corporate philosophies differ. In any case - I am sure that one can find a Boeing horror story somewhere as well (I know a couple myself). This is just like the people who want to boycott every other airline because they lost their luggage once. Nick. > > The reason I say this is that an incident was told to me by someone in > engineering at FedEx in Memphis. Airbus was asked to dispose of the old > shade of Federal Express purple when FedEx changed color schemes about > two years ago. The new shade is considerably darker. Not only did > Airbus not dispose of it as asked, but they continued using it > (incorrectly) on the new paint scheme! As if that weren't bad enough, > they shipped a large quantity of it up to Hamburg where some of the A310s > which were being converted to freighters were being painted! The FedEx > people in Memphis were more than a little miffed at Airbus over that one. > > This just points out one of the differences in corporate philosophy. I > have nothing to do with either company, but I feel *much* better getting > on a Boeing airplane than an Airbus. > > Jennings Heilig > > From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:37 Jennings Heilig (jheilig@gate.net) wrote: : : All I can say is, Boeing has been building airliners since 1956. Airbus : is a committee (at best). Boeing listens to it's customers, Airbus : treats them like it's the customer's privilege to buy airplanes from : Airbus. Boeing has been building airliners since closer to 1906 than 1956 :) -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 770 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A. From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: nate@croydon.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Keir Edel) Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Reply-To: croydon@Dartmouth.EDU Organization: Croydon Network Research at Dartmouth College Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:37 Jennings Heilig (jheilig@gate.net) wrote: : All I can say is, Boeing has been building airliners since 1956. Um... even longer. 1956 would be the 707, right? The first U.S. maker jetliner, yes, but s I recall, Boeing built airliners starting with the 247 a few years before the DC-3 came out (can't remember the year, but it was solidly pre-war), and followed it with some other flops like the Stratoliner, the "Clipper" flying boats. Even if they weren't modern Jetliners, they *did* give Boeing some experience building passenger planes, and were a gallant, if failed, attempt to counter Douglas's dominance of that market. -- Nate Edel '98 "They looked deep into my soul and assigned me Dartmouth College a number based on the order in which I joined." Sigma Nu, DB#1200 -- Homer Simpson, "The Stonecutters" Episode From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: schell@condor.psych.ucsb.edu (Terry Schell;x3332) Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Psychology Department, University of California, Santa Barbara Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:37 In mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: >Since Airbus has about 30% of the market (approx), it should be expected that >the "public opinion" might follow these numbers more or less. Hence, you might >expect about 70% of airline employees to prefer Boeing. I can see absolutely no reason that the preference of the public should mirror the market share. Market share is determined by which plane the airlines think will give the biggest profit - the preferences of pilots and passengers are based on virtually any criteria *other than* profit potential. >As well, asking a 747-400 captain for his opinion on the smaller Airbus planes >is perhaps not 100% fair. Asking a 737 captain to compare a 320 would be more >fair. You should go back and read the original post again - It was not a 747 crew that prefered Boeing products. Terry Schell From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: meb4593@webevt01.ca.boeing.com Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:37 >>>>> "Jean-Francois" == Jean-Francois Mezei writes: Jean-Francois> As well, asking a 747-400 captain for his opinion on Jean-Francois> the smaller Airbus planes is perhaps not 100% Jean-Francois> fair. Asking a 737 captain to compare a 320 would be Jean-Francois> more fair. In my unscientific survey, I talked to a few America West pilots. These former 737 pilots absolutely loved the A320! As a software engineer I have concerns regarding the cockpit avionics, and as a passenger I was disappointed in the quality of the passenger interior. But the airplane is taken as a serious competitor at Boeing. What will be *really* interesting, is a comparison of the Next Generation 737 against the A320! -- Michael Bain WebMaster (206) 294-0913 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Cabin Systems - IFE meb4593@ungoliant.ca.boeing.com From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:38 Obviously, I was referring to Boeing *jets*, as I'm well aware that Boeing was building airliners a *long* time before 1956... ;) Jennings From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rparpatt@uniserve.com Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UNIServe Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:38 In article , jheilig@gate.net says... > > >All I can say is, Boeing has been building airliners since 1956. Airbus >is a committee (at best). Boeing has been building planes a lot longer than that. If you are referring to Jetliner's, the 707 went into service in 1958. I do agree with you when you say that Boeing is good when it comes to customer service. Anybody remember the special 707's that were built for Qantas? How about the 747sp. Talk about building a custom plane. Although I am a boeing fan, I think that the best looking (sexiest?) jetliner ever build was the Douglas DC8-63. In the air, or on the ground, that was one nice a/c. From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Bradg Gillies) Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:38 I work on both Boeings and Airbusses on a regulsar basis. The Airbus, forthe most part is easier to work on than the Boeing. Boeing haas a way of making the aircraft unfriendly to the Mechanics. I hope this has changed with the 777. I still prefer the philosophy of Boeing over Airbus, Give the pilot the final say. I like computers and automation of some of the systems on the aircraft but I also like the pilot to overide the automated systems as well. Example: Airbus A320 has to make an emergency go around to avoid collision on runway. THe pilot pushes the throttles to the stops and the computer determines the amount of thrust developed (required). The computer cannot see the situation and keeps all parameters within SAFE limits. This does not always result in the desired ooutcome. Boeing aircraft same scenario. Pilot overides computer pushes throttles to the stops. Engine develops 115% power. The plane THerefore evades the problem faster and sacrifices the engines to save the plane. Don't get me wrong the engines will work just fine at that power setting for a few minutes and will get them home. That is jus one way I think boeing has done beter over Airbus. Let the pilot have the final say. Just one mans opinion. If it aint a Boing I aint Going. From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: adrian@airmail.net (adrian reedy) Subject: Re: CSAT III Landing Control References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: customer of Internet America Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:39 On 10 Jan 96 02:01:42 , bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) wrote: |In a discussion on CAT III, we were debating the the actual requirements for |the various subclasses. The operational requirements come down to CAT IIIa |Decision height 50 feet, uncoupled (manual) landing, CAT IIIB, no decision |height (full automatic landing), disconnect autopilot at a defined speed for |control, CAT IIIc, automatic landing and roll-out guidance to a full stop. The actual CAT III requirements depend on whether the aircraft has a 4 channel, fail operational autopilot (as the L1011 - no decision height, a 50 ft "alert height"), or a something like the MD88 2 channel "fail passive" autopilot, with a 50 ft decision height. The individual carriers approved Ops Specs govern precisely what equipment is required under what conditions. Note that no CAT III approaches may be initiated with any required air or ground component inop. A failure at any point requires a missed approach. Also, no autopilot disconnects at DH with a manual landing are permitted underr CAT III. By definition, they are autoland only. I'm not familiar with the CAT III approval for retrofitted 727s with the heads-up display. I don't -think- they have autoland capability. |Questions - |At what speed does the nose wheel steering become effective? As soon as it touches down. Nosewheel steering (as it follows the rudder deflections) tracks the centerline (for rollout mode) as a function of the localizer signal. |As a CAT IIIc landing would require a fully controlled nose steering |mechanism, are there any commercial aircraft certified for this? I think IIIc rollout mode capability is predominately dependant on the localizer not having any kinks in it. The individual aircraft/autopilot package has to be approved, along with the runway. When I was on the L10ll, we did not have rollout mode approved, and minimum RVR was about 600 feet. The autopilot was disconnected at nosewheel touchdown. This may have changed. My experience is pretty old. |If there is someone knowledgable about the L-1011, what is the |mecanism for nose wheel steering (i.e. tiller/control wheel or |controlled through foot pedals?) Both. All transport aircraft I'm familiar with have about a plus/minus 10 degree nosewheel steering authority through the rudder pedal steering. Anything more than that is done with the wheel/tiller. -- adrian@airmail.net adrian.reedy@lunatic.com 1:124/2113 From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: CSAT III Landing Control 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: 22 Jan 96 04:40:39 >3)If there is someone knowledgable about the L-1011, what is the > mecanism for nose wheel steering (i.e. tiller/control wheel or > controlled through foot pedals?) The L-1011 uses a tiller and foot pedals for nose wheel steering. There is a switch below the tiller that turns off rudder pedal steering. Pedal authority is 10 deg left/right; tiller authority is 67 deg left/right. Dave http://users.aol.com/tristar500/l1011/ From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d329p$8dg@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> <1996Jan13.162149.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:39 In article <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: > Beta testing in production with a product that carries 150 lives and moves > at 550 miles per hour? Oh yeah, this is a company _I want to support. > If what you say is true, Airbus is criminally negligent and ought to be > sued into oblivion. Lucky for them none of the A320 crashes happened in > the US. Air France was the basic beta tester or Airbus and they had quite a mouthfull of complaints to Airbus which, at first, did not wish to have its engineers talk to Air France pilots. So the 320 did have huge theeting problems, and nobody is denying this. You might wish to sue Airbus. But if I were you, I would sue the FAA and other accreditation agencies for having accredited the 320 for commercial service about 2 years before the plane was *really* ready for commercial service. > Or, possibly, it was a bug, or an something that the design engineers never > anticipated. Remember, humans ultimately build these things. Complicated > computer control software is just one more thing that can go wrong. 1- Most of the problems with the 320 WERE because of improper information being fed to the computers, thus generating alarms that resulted in unexpected actions. For instance, how is a pilot to react if the ground proximity alarm goes off at 20k feet over the ocean ? The landing gear incident was something which was probably unknown to all at that time and no engineer or pilot could have predicted that hydroplanning would be a problem during landing. In hindsight, it is easy to blame airbus, but they put in that extra check as a safety measure to make sure the plane was indeed in the ground. 2- If you know about the concept of knowledge base, you should know that it is possible to transform the knowledge and experience of experts into computer programmes which, when used, provide the user with a very good decision tool. If Airbus did things right, when it discovered the aqua-planning problem, it would have fixed the software to handle such cases since wheel brakes are basically inoperative. (I don't know if this actually happen, just mentioning the possibility) About enveloppe "breaking": If a manufacturer is going to find out what the envelopes of its aircraft are, perhaps it should have 2 numbers: a safe enveloppe and a maximum enveloppe. The whole point of these envelopes is to allow the pilot to push the button to the max without having to worry about breaking the plane. This is the same as ABS brakes in cars: you push the pedal to the max and you know that the computer will apply justy the right amount of braking to get you to stop the fastest. Users who are not used to ABS will defeat its purpose by "pumping" the brakes and won't get the most efficient braking because they don't use them properly. I think that the same applies to any new system. From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: richard@rmit.edu.au (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d329p$8dg@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> <1996Jan13.162149.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:39 rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >If what you say is true, Airbus is criminally negligent and ought to be >sued into oblivion. Lucky for them none of the A320 crashes happened in >the US. ... yet! WHat with the numbers of 'em that NW and UA alone are flying around, not to mention the Canadians who seem to be smitten with the things (I wonder if there's a link between Montreal based carriers and airbus orders... hmmmm... gotta love those French Canadians ;-) ). Where's Karl to tell us his theory of how we're overdue for a 320 crash! -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, Systems & Network Administration / Webmaster / Fanatic :) RMIT Information Technology Services (ITS) email: richard@rmit.edu.au I like: Boeing, UA, AN, WN. Vodka, Trek & 'phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814 Shostakovich. Shost CD's I own: 122. Web: http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard 1996 Goal: Fly on a Tupolev 154M or IL-62 into LED or SVO and survive! From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d329p$8dg@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> <1996Jan13.162149.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:40 >Where's Karl to tell us his theory of how we're overdue for a 320 >crash! Not so much a theory as a wisecrack based on (misuse of) statistics -- it was 16 months from the A320's first flight to its first fatal crash. The interval between succeeding crashes was 20 months, 23 months, and 20 months. The A320 has now gone 28 months without a fatal crash, though since the debate is focused on the flight controls it would seem fair to include the A330 crash, which was 19 months ago. One might (erroneously) conclude that an A320 crash is either overdue or due in the next few months. An amusing joke, perhaps, but statistics don't really work that way. However, Michel Asseline, captain of the A320 that crashed at Habsheim, argues in his book "Le pilote est-il coupable?" that United will plant one in the not-too-distant future. I'm afraid I don't read French, so I could only barely follow the general drift of his argument. Perhaps someone more literate in French, and who has read the book, would care to comment. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <1996Jan14.001500.1@eisner.decus.org> <4dajge$a6s@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <1996Jan14.154737.1@eisner.decus.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:40 In article <1996Jan14.154737.1@eisner.decus.org>, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >In article <4dajge$a6s@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >> You're beginning to catch on, JF. >> >> It's only been relatively recently that computers have been able to >> simulate airflow over an entire airframe. > >There are pionners and innovators and then thare are those carefull and >conservative types. > >Airbus is the one who innovated and took the risks. And yes, it had problems. For something you admit wasn't necessary. Risks you apparently think subjected innocent passengers to beta software. Jeez, sounds criminally negligent to me. RNA From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mtcross@chat.carleton.ca (Mike Cross) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <1996Jan12.234949.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d7i63$kae@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <1996Jan13.160052.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d9dp0$s0b@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Carleton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:40 Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU) wrote: > So you concede. Thank you. There was no need for Airbus to change the > interface on its airliners. I don't believe it is a matter of conceding. The point was that there was no overwhelming reason to switch to side stick controlers. However after studing the matter Airbus found side stick controlers to be superior. Several of the reasons have been mentioned such as visibility of your EFIS and the more natural feel a sidestick has for flying than a yolk. The fact that military aircraft use sticks is proof of the last point. In fact even MD's new military transport uses side sticks. I find as I read these posts that many individuals choose the "well it's always been done this way" defense of Boeing's continued use of yolks and traditional cockpit structure. However if something better comes along there should be very little reason not to change. It's unfortunate that so many individuals choose to reject advancements. You do realize that when the automobile was produced many people said you would suffocate when the car reached 30 MPH. You seem to be the same kind of person that would say such a thing. > There's a massive difference. Hydraulics and the like obey physical > laws that are described by continuous mathematics. While it has an > infinite number of states, the behavior in all states can be accurately > described by testing at a finite number of those states, by exploiting > the continuous nature of the system. > Compare to digital control: While there are a finite number of states, > the number of such states is so huge as to be infeasible to test all of > them. Moreover, testing at any number of them need not tell you _anything > about the behavior in the untested states because of the non-continuous > nature of the mathematics that describe the system. > Why would you want to? Note: ABS existed before the advent of > computer control. There were ABS on the Comet jetliner, first > jet airliner in the world. You have not responded to the comment about elevators. Are you afraid to ride the elevator? You would probably be the type of person who was against human operators being replaced with computer controls. > However, it is not always the case that remaining within safe wing-strength > limits is the desirable thing to do, if the alternative is death. > See the difference? No I don't see the difference. You have chosen to state many facts that are isolated in nature to a specific point you wish to support. The fact of the matter is there will be design flaws with any system no matter who makes it. I'm not talking glaring weakness but flaws which will be hidden until a strange set of conditions and factors confront an aircraft. Such as your pushing the aircraft pasts its limits in order to save it argument. It's a nice argument to bash Airbus but it is misguided because of the very rare nature of the incident you speak about. I might choose to bash Boeing now because of the accidents that have or might happen because they allow their pilots to push the aircraft beyond it's design limits causing failure. However I will not because it is a limitation in design that is impossible to defend against if you choose Boeings mindset. (If you allow your pilots to have this type of overrideing control because it is your belief that is right to do so you must live with the consequences of actions those pilots might take that cause an accident. Just as Airbus will have to live with any accidents caused because their computer system did not give the pilot enough "room" to manouver.) It is also a limitation that will very rarely come to light in an accident. The point I am making is that it does not matter which design you decided to go with there are always limitations. The fact that the systems we talk about are designed by humans means that no system or design is better than any other because in the end they are all prone to accidents at one time or another. What I find upsetting is that you choose to ignore the fact that both Airbus and Boeing aircraft are extremely safe even though you are an intellegent individual. It seems to me that far to often on this newsgroup national pride has gotten in the way of common sense. It's unfortunate that many individuals on this newsgroup choose simply to bash Airbus and make it seem as though their aircraft are flying death traps when indeed they are not. Mike From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <1996Jan12.234949.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d7i63$kae@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <1996Jan13.160052.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d9dp0$s0b@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:41 >... the more natural feel a sidestick has for flying than a yolk. The >fact that military aircraft use sticks is proof of the last point. First, a minor nit -- one fries a yolk, and flies with a yoke. I assume in your comment about military aircraft you mean sidesticks, i.e., what Airbus uses. The fact that military aircraft use them has nothing to do with natural feel, and everything to do with maintaining control in a high G environment (which an airliner could not survive). The smaller amount of space required may also be a consideration in the tight environment of a fighter cockpit. >In fact even MD's new military transport uses side sticks. That *may* simply be an artifact of a preference in military circles, derived from experience with fighters where there IS a good reason for using a sidestick. >You have not responded to the comment about elevators. Are you afraid to >ride the elevator? You would probably be the type of person who was >against human operators being replaced with computer controls. If the software controlling an elevator fails, the worst that can happen is failsafes can stop the elevator in its tracks, forcing me to wait for rescue or climb out the escape hatch on top. When an aircraft gives me a similar option (e.g., push the ejection button) to get out safely if the software fails, I'll be just as happy with a computer-controlled aircraft. Last I checked, even in First Class, there were lots of knobs and buttons but none would allow me to beat a hasty retreat. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: richard@bofh.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <1996Jan12.234949.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d7i63$kae@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <1996Jan13.160052.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d9dp0$s0b@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <1996Jan14.001500.1@eisner.decus.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:41 mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: >Next time you take a modern elevator, WORRY. They're all computer controlled >these days with all sortsd of fancy software to position each car to reduce >wait time and increase efficiency. Some even have sensors for weight and >movement/heat to detect if there is someone in the car of not. If you take into >consideration everything that could go wrong, you should take the stairs. uh. huh we have crazy computer controlled lifts at the University I work at. When I was a student it used to be frustrating when the damn thing would just "decide" to go down, or up, or not stop at your floor, or do an express or... *BUT* That's a lift, not an aeroplane. You get the same kind of glitch in a plane and people will die, rather than being 2 minutes late for a lecture. -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, Systems & Network Administration / Webmaster / Fanatic :) RMIT Information Technology Services (ITS) email: richard@rmit.edu.au I like: Boeing, UA, AN, WN. Vodka, Trek & 'phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814 Shostakovich. Shost CD's I own: 122. Web: http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard 1996 Goal: Fly on a Tu-154 or IL-62 into LED or SVO and survive! From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mike.epprecht@digitec.co.za (MIKE EPPRECHT) Subject: SAA 747 SP encounters CAT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: mike.epprecht@digitec.co.za (MIKE EPPRECHT) Organization: Digitec Online - South Africa Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:41 Good day. Friday 19 January 1996, a South Africa Airways 747 SP encountered severe air turbulance on a flight from Johannesburg to Juddeah. The aircraft just crossed over the Zaire border at cruise altitude when it was lifted 400 feet followed by a drop of 800 feet. Airspeed increased from .85 to .89 during the drop. The autopilot dis-engaged and the crew managed to maintain control of the aircraft. All 3 INS units were u/s for a period of 5 minutes, as well as 1 generator which dropped offline. The aircraft turned back to Johannesburg and landed safely 2 hours later. There was no structural airframe damage but various interior panels, interior windows and other cabin equipment was damaged. 100 Passengers were injured, 24 required hospitalization. I'd say tha tthis was a really rough one, comments ??? cheers Mike ( mike#nez.com, mike.epprecht@digitec.co.za ) --- * RM 1.31 1470 * Oxymoron: Real Magic. From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: daspork@ibm.net Subject: Re: 24 Hours in Seattle, Part I & II References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@ibm.net Organization: All Things Schweinlike, Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:41 A posting worth D/Ling and keeping for when you get a chance to visit yourself. Thanks for the info! From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 24 hours in Seattle, Part I References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:42 In article , rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu wrote: > Boeing doesn't actually make commercial > aircraft at Boeing Field, but it is their delivery center, so you > will often see a flight line of the latest aircraft just prior to > delivery. Unfortunately, the recent Boeing strike meant that there > weren't any aircraft there that I noticed. > > However, the #1 747, #1 757 and the #1 767 were parked at the south end > of the airfield near to the Museum of Flight site. #1 767, of course, > still has the massive infrared detector mounted on top (for a military > project) Just for your added information, the only commercial planes that are delivered from Boeing Field are 757s and 737s. However, because our Flight Test department is located there, you will often see the odd 747, 767, or 777 there for Flight Test purposes. 747s, 767s, and 777s all are delivered to their customers at Paine Field near Everett. The Number 1 767 no longer belongs to Boeing. We sold it to the Army for the infrared project. It's recently been repainted in a standard white and gray military paint scheme. The Number 1 (RA-001) 747 actually belongs to the Museum of Flight, although we leased it back last year to flight test the 777 engines. C. Marin Faure Video Services, The Boeing Company (opinions/satements are my own) author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Julia Subject: Re: 24 Hours in Seattle, Part II References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: inlink Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:42 Nice story! Wish i know you were going...I would have joined you . Julia From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: concord977@aol.com (Concord977) Subject: TWA Incident at San Antonio Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: concord977@aol.com (Concord977) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:42 Does anyone know the serial number of the TWA 727-200 whose rear airstair opened in flight? From kls Mon Jan 22 04:40:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: richard@rmit.edu.au (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Winglets - Russian Style Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 96 04:40:42 hi all, Recently there has been discussion of winglets and their use on aircraft. I was just thinking this morning what about the new Russian aircraft - the Tupolev TU-204 and Illyushin IL-96 - which both have winglets - but these winglets are large/tall - I think on the Tu-204 they extend aobe the fuselage (is this correct? I don't have a hady photo to check). Anyway as people have commented the weight issue with winglets is considerable, and yet they use large winglets. Is this maybe a copy-cat routine, or could it be that their wingspans are shorter (it seems that way from some photos) and thus the larger winglets actually do help, and the wright is so much of an issue. Does anyone have any information on this? I'm interested. -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, Systems & Network Administration / Webmaster / Fanatic :) RMIT Information Technology Services (ITS) email: richard@rmit.edu.au I like: Boeing, UA, AN, WN. Vodka, Trek & 'phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814 Shostakovich. Shost CD's I own: 122. Web: http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard 1996 Goal: Fly on a Tu-154 or IL-62 into LED or SVO and survive! From kls Thu Jan 25 00:54:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Winglets... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:54:59 Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) The theory behind winglets is to INCREASE the EFFECTIVE length of the wing without increasing the SPAN. In order to effectively achieve this goal the winglet must be rather large in size. The A310 and A320 winglets are too small to be really effective although they do give a small increase in efficiency. The winglet itself (on a 747-400) is relatively light as it is made of carbon fibre and graphite composites. So weight is not really the issue. The 777 has no real need for the winglet as the wing design is very efficient and you will notice it is also long. Effectively achieving the same goal only with an increase in span. This is why they came up with the folding wing option. This was to accomodate the aircraft on gates spaced for smaller aircraft (757,767 etc). The need never (not yet) arose for the option due to the availability of wider spaced gates designed for the 747 and such. The only hitch is gate scheduling. I recently (2years ago) had the opportunity to get involved with an aircraft (727) which was modified with winglets (Valsan Modification) The aircraft achieved a 5% decrease in fuel burn and a faster time to cruise altitude. I hardly think that is anything to scoff at. There are people who think it is not worth it and there are people who think it works great. I (obviously) am a proponent of the winglet and its advantages. I have seen it work with my own eyes in real life flying not in some wind tunnel or computer. Flying is the true test. They work. Brad These opinions are mine and mine alone. I am not affiliated with any of the above mentioned companies or their subsidiaries. From kls Thu Jan 25 00:54:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeckstei@rutcor.rutgers.edu (Jonathan Eckstein) Subject: 747SP Wing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:54:59 Organization: Rutgers University Do any of you Boeing experts out there know why the wing of the 747SP lacks the trailing edge fairings that you see on all other 747's? Do the flaps work differently? From kls Thu Jan 25 00:54:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747SP Wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:54:59 >Do any of you Boeing experts out there know why the wing of the 747SP >lacks the trailing edge fairings that you see on all other 747's? Do >the flaps work differently? The flaps do indeed work differently -- the 747SP uses simple flaps (or maybe double-slotted flaps, I can't recall offhand) instead of the triple-slotted flaps used on other 747 models. The fairings house the complex flap activation mechanisms and thus aren't needed on the SP. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jan 25 00:54:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Jet Engines above the wing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:54:59 A few weeks ago there was a posting concerning engine configurations for passenger airliners. The question of a jet engine mounted above the wing was brought forwards. I have here in a copy of Janes, a photo (and little else) of a small feederliner called a VFW-614, from West Germany. The airplane in the photograph is wearing Luftwaffe clothing, but it is clearly a small feederliner. There is a slightly swept wing, with two small fanjets mounted on pylons ABOVE the wing. The wing is mounted low on the fuselage, ala 737. The horizontal surfaces are mounted high on the fueslage with more dihedral (also similar to a 737). Single vertical empennage. >From the looks of it, it seats 35-40. It is shown in the "rare" aircraft section of the book... next to Convair 990s, Bristol Britannas, etc. -tim From kls Thu Jan 25 00:54:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pmagee@teleport.com (Patrick Magee) Subject: Re: FedEx HUD's (was: landing in fog) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: LeisureTronics Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:54:59 In article brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) writes: >along with their aircraft. FedEx also uses head-up displays >on some aircraft to facilitate the certification to lower >minimums. Which aircraft have HUD's installed? Who is the HUD manufacturer? Pat From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rching@saclink1.csus.edu (Russell K Ching) Subject: Re: FedEx 727 order/MD-10 study References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California State University Sacramento Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:00 BBost0325 (bbost0325@aol.com) wrote: : FedEx is also rumored to be studying, along with MDC, a 2-man cockpit : conversion of their DC-10 fleet (dubbed the 'MD-10'). The goal of these : conversions is to make the DC-10 look and feel like an MD-11. Any : thoughts from anybody on this? As old as their DC-10s are getting (20+), : it seems investing in MD-11s might be more economical. Comments? MDC and American were studying the feasibility of performing such an upgrade 4-5 years ago. Evidently, it was too expensive, especially on aircraft that would have been +20 years old (by the time the upgrade was completed). However, with many used DC-10-10s and -30s on the market, it (i.e., buying a used aircraft, and converting and upgrading it) might be cheaper than buying a new MD-11 at about $100 million. Russ From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:00 In article "P. Wezeman" writes: > In a recent exchange of postings in rec.travel.air several people have >mentioned conplaints of a lack of proper force feedback in the Airbus A320 >sidestick control. Could someone who is familiar with the system please >describe it briefly? In particular, does it work by sensing force or by >sensing movement? Roughly how much force does it take to operate it? If the >stick moves, where is the pivot point in relation to the pilots hand and >what is the range of movement and force gradient? I am also interested >in any pros and cons of the device. The A320 flight control system uses a load-demand control law, based on something called "C*". In effect, the position of the side stick commands an aircraft loading. Once commanded, the loading is preserved. The side stick can be viewed as commanding AOA. In pitch, the maximum load is 10 daN, and can be rotated +- 16 degrees. It is oriented 20 degrees forward, and has a sensing threshold of 0.5 daN. In roll, its maximum load in is 3 daN, out 2 daN. Its threshold is 0.4 daN in both directions. Maximum deflection is +-20 degrees, and it is oriented 12 degrees inboard. The joystick is not coupled. That means that the two joysticks are com- pletely independent critters. Their inputs are algebraically added. If one pilot pulls full-left and the other full-right, nothing will happen. There is no backfeed. The joysticks do not reflect aerodynamic forces. An override capability exists; it's a button in the grip. When one pilot has overriden another, an arrow pointing to the other pilot flashes in the glareshield. There is also an aural annunciator. This override, in effect, "turns off" the other stick, until the pilot tries to use it, again. The pilot's arm rest can be adjusted for a more comfortable fit, but in reality, most pilots have reported that the arm rest position doesn't sig- nificantly affect control. -- 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 Jan 25 00:55:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:01 In article "P. Wezeman" writes: > In a recent exchange of postings in rec.travel.air several people have >mentioned conplaints of a lack of proper force feedback in the Airbus A320 >sidestick control. Could someone who is familiar with the system please >describe it briefly? In particular, does it work by sensing force or by >sensing movement? Roughly how much force does it take to operate it? If the >stick moves, where is the pivot point in relation to the pilots hand and >what is the range of movement and force gradient? I am also interested >in any pros and cons of the device. Oh, I forgot the pros and cons: Pros: it's dirt-cheap. No back-driving servos, no interlinks between the two sticks. Easy and cheap to maintain. Probably saves a couple hundred pounds (hey, they had to get the weight savings SOMEWHERE, to justify the FBW experiment :-)). Cons: 1. The lack of interconnectivity makes non-verbal communication between pilots somewhat questionable. The "algebraic" addition of command forces means that both pilots may end up reacting to a threat the wrong way. It is thus a "fuzzy" interface. This observation usually results in a note that in a real airplane, the strongest pilot wins. Not really. In a real airplane, the weakest dog usually "rolls over" and defers to the pilot with the stronger personality. In any event, the communication is clear: you can't move the stick. 2. Similar constraints can also make training interesting for new pilots. Since most airlines operating the A320 are ab initio airlines, and since the A320 is an entry-level aircraft, I'm sure this can make life interesting. 3. The lack of force feedback almost *begs* for protections. The same forces exist (provided by the nonlinear springs) whether the airplane is on the ground or in flight. 4. A few papers have shown force-less joysticks to generally be among the weakest there are for most applications. The most obvious other airplane using one is the F-16, but it uses something rather different (it's a force- joystick, not a positional joystick). The factors 1-4 have been touched upon in the literature and this and other newsgroups since 1986 or so. All have been cited as justification for the simulation of conventional control columns by Boeing in the 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 Thu Jan 25 00:55:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:01 In article , "P. Wezeman" wrote: > In a recent exchange of postings in rec.travel.air several people have >mentioned conplaints of a lack of proper force feedback in the Airbus A320 >sidestick control. Could someone who is familiar with the system please >describe it briefly? In particular, does it work by sensing force or by >sensing movement? Roughly how much force does it take to operate it? If the >stick moves, where is the pivot point in relation to the pilots hand and >what is the range of movement and force gradient? I am also interested >in any pros and cons of the device. > I am a mechanic for an airline which operates A320s and have "played" with the system alot. The sidestick is for all intents and purposes a joystick. It is basically a series of transducers hooked up to a stick to provide input to a computer. The feel provided by the stick is artificial. There is a series of "snubbers" which give the stick artificial weight. The harder you push the stick the more it resists (like the shock absorbers on a car). The stick provides no tactile feedback to the pilot, so he has to be visually aware of his situation. For example if the aircraft for sake of argument had an aileron which was not deflecting normally there would no less and no more resistance on the stick. This also is noted when there is no hydraulics available. The stick feels the same with hydraulics as it does without. The force required to move the stick is roughly equivalent to any madern joystick such as the thrustmaster. Except that the stick resists rapid movement for obvious reasons. Icannot comment on the force gradient as it changes with the force applied to the stick. The pros: roomier flightdeck in front of the pilots pilot and F/O get table trays to eat lunch on (or laptop computers) more game like The cons: Not tactile feedback to pilot decreased situational awareness more game like Hope this is what you wanted. Brad From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Factors affecting A320 US record. References: <1996Jan19.113759@France.Sun.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:01 In article rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu writes: >In article <1996Jan19.113759@France.Sun.COM>, >Steve McKinty - SunSoft ICNC Grenoble wrote: >>I doubt it. As far as I know the control software for the A320/30/40 was >>written in the US by US companies, > >Really? I once wrote an article for The Economist about computer risks, >at which time I received reams of information from some French outfit that >claimed to be writing the A320 flight control software. Does anyone >know for sure? The various components of the EFCS were developed by Sextant Avionique, Aerospatiale, and Thomson-CSF. Aerospatiale wrote the specs and did the QA work. I ran across a reference some time ago which indicated that the division of Thomson-CSF that did the work was located in Canada. I've not been able to verify this. Most people confuse the EFCS with the flight management system. The flight management system was developed by Honeywell, the market leader. -- 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 Jan 25 00:55:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Factors affecting A320 US record. References: <4djlvf$fv9@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <821977208.10600@chequers.plsys.co.uk> <1996Jan19.113759@France.Sun.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:01 >>I doubt it. As far as I know the control software for the A320/30/40 was >>written in the US by US companies, I know that Fokker jets use FMS software written by an american firm and the Fokker engineer I had spoken to told me that it was very common for all manufacturers to use that company. He said that contracting with such a company was about the same as contracting for flight simulators since you have to give them all of your plane's specs etc etc. Whether Airbus used that firm or not I am not sure. But it is not inconceivable that a non-Airbus firm actually wrote the software according to Airbus specs. And contrary to popular beleif, Airbus does not build all of its components. I know that Bombardier/Canadair builds some rather large Airbus components at its Mirabel plant (but can't remember off hand exactly which). (or at least, it did at one time). From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Factors affecting A320 US record. References: <4djlvf$fv9@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <821977208.10600@chequers.plsys.co.uk> <1996Jan19.113759@France.Sun.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:02 >And contrary to popular beleif, Airbus does not build all of its >components. I find it very difficult to believe that this is a "popular belief" given the commonly cited U.S.-content in Airbus products (even if you ignore the engines), and in general the necessity in the business of subcontracting work to companies in countries whose airlines are going to be buying your planes. Perhaps the most astonishing bit of non-Airbus production on an Airbus plane is the original engine nacelle and pylon on the A300. Airbus did not really want to spend the substantial sums needed to design these components, and approached McDonnell Douglas to see if MD would sell them those parts from the DC-10. To the utter astonishment of just about everyone, MD said yes. (Actually, they may have been produced by someone other than MD using MD's design, I'm not entirely sure.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: emailia@aol.com (Emailia) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 Flight Controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: emailia@aol.com (Emailia) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:02 The A320 flight control stick has no feedback, as the internal springs are the only feel the pilot has. The ELAC (Elevator and Aileron Computer) have complete control of the forces on the ailerons and elevators. The SEC ( Spoiler and Elevator Computers) also have control, interfacing with each other through another interface computer. The Control stick requires slightly more pressure than a computer joy stick you may be familiar with. Most pilots report that they are quite pleased with the operation of this configuration. The pivot point is approximately 6 cm from the wrist. Thanks for asking Tom Reeves (Airbus Inspector) From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk (Jim Tilbey) Subject: Re: Airbus bashing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:02 In message aschonla@cicresearch.com writes: > It is an absolute pleasure to watch this rather quiet and sedate > group. The Airbus bashing going on in rec.travel.air is becoming > tiresome and possibly a place where lawyers soon will tread. The > story all began with the terrible AA crash in Cali....and now has > degenerated into a sort of "Airbus crashes more than Boeing" thing. > If you have not read/watched any of it, you might agree with me (once > you have) that the group's monitoring is out of control. What amazes > me is how people sign their names at the bottom and include their > company information. Some of these companies are in the aviation > business! I wonder what HQ thinks of all these postings...do they > perhaps reflect some sort of policy? I wonder.... I could not agree more with you, in fact a lot of these partisan comments are not helping the situation at all. The simple fact is that the majority of accidents we are seeing these days are avoidable, the weak link is the 'human interface' be it bad flight deck management, ambiguous procedures or ATC mistakes. It's a credit to aircraft manufacturers that catastrophic failures these days are extremely rare. IMHO we should not be getting involved in a 'my father is bigger than your father' type arguement, we should be looking at where the 'system' has gone wrong, asking why highly trained professionals are making irrational or blantently wrong decisions, remember we only get to hear about those that result in disaster. There are a lot of similarities between the Cali accident and that of the Air Inter A320 crash at Stratsbourg in 1992 which to me proves:- (a) We do not seemed to have learnt a lot over 4 years, and (b) Mountains do not discriminate between Boeings and Airbuses. -- Jim Tilbey Kirkwall, Orkney, UK jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Airbus cannot be completely trusted Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:03 I am a mechanic who works on Airbus A320 aircraft every day. I have seen some pretty scary snags and problems with the aircraft. There is no competition between Airbus and Boeing, Boeing is the more superior aircraft as far as safety goes. Airbus seems to have alot of trouble with things that boeing got right from the beginning. For instance Seals on the Hydraulic system Deteriorate long before they should causing leaks and failures. This can be a severe problem if it is left to go to the extreme, Which seems to happen alot in the industry. I'm sure you have all heard of the "unplanned excursion" syndrome on the airbus aircraft. This was all blamed on pilots and pilot error or unfamiliarity with the aircraft. I have personnally witnessed on 2 occasions, an A320 that would not land. The aircraft simply went TOGA and overshot, No explanation. I have also seen an airbus lose all of its ELAC and SEC computers which in effect leaves the aircraft with only Stab Trim and rudder controls. Flying the aircraft like this equates to driving your car on a skating rink with bald tires. Its not easy to do without making dents. Fortunately the pilot was taught this operation in the simulator and was able to land. I have never seen failures of this magnitude on any Boeing airliner and I have worked on most of them. Don't get me wrong, The Ideas Airbus haas are valid but I think the manufacturer cut corners in order to meet cost factors in the production of the aircraft. This can only lead to problems in operation which I woud surmise has been the case with most operators. Brad... These opinions are mine and mine alone. The operator of the above mentioned aircraft will remain anonymous for obvious reasons. I am not affiliated with Boeing, Airbus or any of their respective subsidiaries. From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Calgary Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:03 I realize that this discussion has now moved on to the good old discussion. But to come back to the subject of the subject line, I can't help thinking how wrong it sounds in this specific case. Isn't it true that 1. A good computer would not have taken liberties with procedures, check points etc., and it would not have set up on a short cut thru a mountain, wouldn't it? 2. And furthermore, a computer might have remembered about aerodynamic brakes when finally discovering the mountain? Not to say that this really should be a strong argument in the debate... (I.e., I am not really trying to argue in favor of the computers, joysticks etc. But it seems to me this particular accident *really* can't be made into a argument against computers...) 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 Jan 25 00:55:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d329p$8dg@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> <1996Jan13.162149.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:03 In article , mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: > About enveloppe "breaking": > > If a manufacturer is going to find out what the envelopes of its aircraft > are, perhaps it should have 2 numbers: a safe enveloppe and a maximum > enveloppe. The whole point of these envelopes is to allow the pilot to push > the button to the max without having to worry about breaking the plane. This is > the same as ABS brakes in cars: you push the pedal to the max and you know that > the computer will apply justy the right amount of braking to get you to stop > the fastest. Users who are not used to ABS will defeat its purpose by "pumping" > the brakes and won't get the most efficient braking because they don't use them > properly. I think that the same applies to any new system. I like the example. Think I can develop a little more. ABS gives you the certainty that you will stay in control in (almost) all situations. The cost is a braking distance increased by at least 5% (and much more with poor systems) compared to optimal braking, even if you use ABS properly (the idea is to be able to avoid the obstacle while braking, not to optimize braking distance). Still nobody suggests that the driver should keep total control on braking power, because only a few people (probably only race pilots, and not all of them) are able to apply optimal braking in an emergency situation ... JF -------------------------------------------------- Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr) Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile TOULOUSE, FRANCE -------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "henry (h.w.) troup" Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: hwt@bnr.ca Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:03 In article , Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >enveloppe. The whole point of these envelopes is to allow the pilot to push >the button to the max without having to worry about breaking the plane. This is In comp.risks, the discussion often centered on the pilot's duty to "break the plane" in extreme circumstances in order to perform the primary role, safegarding human lives. -- Henry Troup - hwt@bnr.ca (Canada) - BNR is not committed to anything I say Leap years are years where the year number is a multiple of four with the exception: If a year is a multiple of 100, then it is only a leap year if it is also a multiple of 400. For example, 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 is. From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pigpen@pacificnet.net Subject: AA Columbia Crash Parts Theft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:04 I was wondering if anyone else heard that parts, including engine, landing gear, and flight control parts, had been stolen off the moutain. One would think that these parts would be guarded especially since there had been arrests of persons steeling items from bodies after the crash. From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim, Hogan@bcstec.ca.boeing.com Subject: Re: Air France Smoking "Policy" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:04 In article JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) writes: >In article >kalia@sludge.chem.nwu.edu (R. Kalia) writes: >>In article <4d3s7j$qtj@kragar.kei.com>, JW6191A@american.edu. says... >>> >>>On a recent Air France A340 flight from Paris CDG to Washington IAD, I >>>noticed that the smoking section of the Tempo, or economy class, was in >>>the middle third of the cheap seats, leaving a non-smoking section between >>>the smokers and the aft area of the plane... >> >>Some months ago I read something about the ventilation on newer (and >>larger?) planes being such that the middle was the best place for the smoking >>section. I am not sure I believe this, but it fits the fact that your >>experience was on an A340. Perhaps someone at sci.aeronautics will know >>about cabin ventilation? > >Anybody know anything on this? In general, on Boeing aircraft (as well as MD & Airbus I believe) the air distribution systems are designed so that there is little or no air movement along the axis of the passenger cabin - i.e. air enters the cabin at ceiling level, circulates in a certain pattern unique to each model, and then exits below the floor via return air grilles. Therefore, IN THEORY, it would not matter where the smoking section is placed. In practice, however, there is often some aisle flow (fore/aft air movement) caused by changes in various operating characteristics of the airplane - forward/aft outflow valve bias, cabin pressure schedule, air conditioning pack schedule, E/E cooling system operating mode, etc. In general, I would recommend that the smoking section be placed at the aft end of the airplane (close to the main outflow valve) - but on a multi-class widebody there is usually more than one smoking section and class locations & number of smokers dictate where smoking is allowed. BTW - if I'm not mistaken, Air France has a unique smoking section on their 767's (and possibly 747's ??) which incorporates additional ventilation by means of venturi skin penetrations in that area. Jim Hogan Boeing ECS Engineering Disclaimer: This is not an official statement of The Boeing Company. Opinions are my own. From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: SAA 747 SP encounters CAT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:04 In article , MIKE EPPRECHT wrote: >Good day. > >Friday 19 January 1996, a South Africa Airways 747 SP encountered severe >air turbulance on a flight from Johannesburg to Juddeah. The aircraft >just crossed over the Zaire border at cruise altitude when it was >lifted 400 feet followed by a drop of 800 feet. Airspeed increased from >.85 to .89 during the drop. The autopilot dis-engaged and the crew >managed to maintain control of the aircraft. > >All 3 INS units were u/s for a period of 5 minutes, as well as >1 generator which dropped offline. > >The aircraft turned back to Johannesburg and landed safely 2 hours >later. > >There was no structural airframe damage but various interior >panels, interior windows and other cabin equipment was damaged. > >100 Passengers were injured, 24 required hospitalization. > > >I'd say tha tthis was a really rough one, comments ??? I'd say the most interesting thing is that SAA turned back to J'burg. An indication that for many purposes there might as well be ocean between S.Africa and Europe. I'm confused, however. You say the flight was going from S. Africa and "Juddeah". What's that? Israel? Does the great circle route to from Joburg to Israel take you over Zaire? (I realize it's a large country, but it's also on the west side of Africa, whereas Israel's to the east). RNA From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: SAA 747 SP encounters CAT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:05 In article , mike.epprecht@digitec.co.za (MIKE EPPRECHT) writes: > Good day. > > Friday 19 January 1996, a South Africa Airways 747 SP encountered severe > air turbulance on a flight from Johannesburg to Juddeah. The aircraft > just crossed over the Zaire border at cruise altitude when it was > lifted 400 feet followed by a drop of 800 feet. Airspeed increased from > .85 to .89 during the drop. The autopilot dis-engaged and the crew > managed to maintain control of the aircraft. > > All 3 INS units were u/s for a period of 5 minutes, as well as > 1 generator which dropped offline. > > The aircraft turned back to Johannesburg and landed safely 2 hours > later. > > There was no structural airframe damage but various interior > panels, interior windows and other cabin equipment was damaged. > > 100 Passengers were injured, 24 required hospitalization. > > > I'd say tha tthis was a really rough one, comments ??? One thing that this points out, based on the assumption that the pax hurt were thrown around the cabin, is that many people don't take the usual captain's announcement on seatbelts when seated seriously. CAT is always a possibility. Mishaps like the above need more publicity to make the travelling public aware of consequences of not wearing the belt while seated. I get a perverse kick out of things like this and other related items like passengers leaving their seats and making for the exits prior to stopping at the gate. On several flights I was on where this practice was widespread (Russians were the worst offenders), the plane's tug made an abrupt stop, sending pax in the aisles down like dominoes. -- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pete@meads.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:05 In article: blomberg@plasma.kth.se (Lars Blomberg, Alfven Laboratory, Stockholm) writes: > > >I recall an incident several years ago with a Continental 747 > >departing LGW at maximum takeoff weight, with a maximum crosswind > >component. They lost an engine during the takeoff run. The aircraft > >lifted off the runway, and was over-rotated by the flying pilot. [...] > > > >The F/E started dumping fuel immediately, and they were able to begin > >a slow climb and return to the airport. > > What is the maximum rate at which fuel can be dumped? I assume it must > be quite high if it is to make a difference during a take-off with a > lost engine. With all 6 Override/Jettison Pumps operating, max dump rate is 2,600 kgs/minute. There are 2 Jettison/Override pumps in the Centre tank, and 2 Jettison pumps in each of the No 2 & 3 tanks. Having said that, the most I've dumped is just over 40 tonnes, and it took a lot longer than the 16 minutes Mr. Boeing said it would :( -- Pete Finlay . . . .somewhere in England <<>> From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Flight Recorder Durability References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:05 In article Pete Mellor writes: > The Aircraft Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) could be considered > to provide another form of redundancy, in which the main parameters are > broadcast continually and recorded at a ground receiving station. > I would generally agree, but we might already have just that (a QAR > in the roof) plus a completely different recording mechanism (ACARS). The Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting Systems (ACARS), in general, is not set up to "broadcast continually" flight parameters. There are some carriers who use some automatic processing to generate reports at certain times (e.g. EGT over heat, hard landing), but these are very much isolated snapshots. Sorry to be nitpicky, but this is one area I'm familiar with in which mis-information abounds. 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 Jan 25 00:55:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: CSAT III Landing Control References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:05 In adrian@airmail.net (adrian Reedy) writes: >On 10 Jan 96 02:01:42 , bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) >wrote: > Note that no CAT III approaches may be initiated with any required >air or ground component inop. A failure at any point requires a >missed approach. Also, no autopilot disconnects at DH with a manual >landing are permitted underr CAT III. By definition, they are >autoland only. Hi Brian! One minor point here: a fail passive autoland just gives the plane back to the pilot if there is a failure at any time. A fail operational autoland system continues the approach and landing if there is a failure at a point low in the approach. The light twins: MD-80 and 737-3,4,500 are CAT IIIA fail passive. The 757, 767, 747-400, 777, MD-11 and L-1011 are all CAT IIIB fail op. The DC-10 was fail op when it worked. > > I'm not familiar with the CAT III approval for retrofitted 727s with >the heads-up display. I don't -think- they have autoland capability. With that neat Flight Dynamics Heads Up Guidance Sytem, they don't need autoland. The pilot flies the plane to a CAT IIIA landing. Actually, some of the latest 727-200 were CAT IIIA autoland equipped. I believe some carriers are using it. There is talk of doing CAT IIIB in the 737-3,4,500 using the combination of the fail passive autoland and the HGS. >As a CAT IIIc landing would require a fully controlled nose steering >|mechanism, are there any commercial aircraft certified for this? > Early in the 757 career, BA did 1,000 instrumented autolands without a single failure. That helped qualify the BA 757 for CAT IIIC, but they received IIB rating only. There is just no guidance to get off the runway once the plane has stopped. Ralph From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geospe@mcs.com Subject: Question about terminology Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:06 Last week I was in Avionics training for the MD-11. We were discussing altimeter settings when the question arose regarding the meaning of the abbreviations QNH, QFE, etc. We were able to figure out all the letters but the Q. I suspect that it has to do with pressure, but I have no authoritative source to verify this. Please tell me if I am on the right track, and a recommendation of a good available reference source would also be very appreciated. Thank you. geospe@mcs.com From kls Thu Jan 25 00:55:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk (Jim Tilbey) Subject: Re: Carry-ons References: <4bcknr$i0l@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <4ber65$f5t@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <1995Dec22.172118.1@eisner.decus.org> <4bpoo1$ah1@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jan 96 00:55:06 In message siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) writes: > [Cross-posting to sci.aeronautics.airliners because I believe > this one message has some relevance to airliner design.] > If this were not the case, airlines could install some > kind of large luggage bins or lockers just inside the doorways > and allow passengers to just jump their bulkier carryons into > them as they entered the plane. Sure, there would be problems, > such as slowing down the deplaning process, and bags on the > bottom getting squished; but many of us would use such a > system in preference to underseat storage if it were available. To a limited extent these are already available, I know from regular travel on British Airways that if you are carrying a bulky item that will not fit in the overhead bin the cabin crew subject to space and size will put it in a locker, however occassionally they will suggest putting it in the hold. IMHO this is where the problem lies, passengers don't want to put their valuables in the hold and who blames them when there is no guarentee that you will ever see them again. In the past 4 months I know of two people who have had their hold luggage broken into and everyday items stolen such as worn in shoes, towels etc and this in parts of the world where such things would not be considered as luxuries, this makes me think twice about putting my camera etc in the hold. Maybe if airlines excepted more than limited liability when items went missing passengers would be more inclined to put more of their possessions in the hold. -- Jim Tilbey Kirkwall, Orkney, UK jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk From news Tue Jan 23 00:35:44 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!su-35 From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 22 Jan 1996 14:55:14 -0800 Organization: BUMCH Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> [[[ cross-posted to s.a.a by RNA, m.t.a-i comoderator ]]] I caught a very brief news flash on the BBC World Service this morning that mentioned a bankruptcy at Fokker Aircraft of the Netherlands. This was a surprise to me because I had noticed a dramatic rise in orders for Fokker aircraft over the last few months. I had also read about Daimler Benz' recent pledges of support for its ailing subsidiary. Does anyone know the real story? What's going on? Thornton From news Tue Jan 23 02:54:23 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!mail2news.demon.co.uk!lofgren.demon.co.uk From: "Niels M. Sampath" Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 22 Jan 1996 19:25:48 -0800 Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <822361104snz@lofgren.demon.co.uk> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> In article <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu "Thornton Shepherd" writes: > [[[ cross-posted to s.a.a by RNA, m.t.a-i comoderator ]]] > > I caught a very brief news flash on the BBC World Service this morning that > mentioned a bankruptcy at Fokker Aircraft of the Netherlands. This was a > surprise to me because I had noticed a dramatic rise in orders for Fokker > aircraft over the last few months. I had also read about Daimler Benz' recent > pledges of support for its ailing subsidiary. Does anyone know the real story ? > What's going on? > > Thornton > Daimler-Benz has withdrawn and its up to the Dutch Govt. now. -- Niels From news Tue Jan 23 18:40:15 1995 Path: ditka!daver!news.cerf.net!newsserver.sdsc.edu!newshub.csu.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu!decwrl!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk (Jim Tilbey) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 23 Jan 1996 10:04:09 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4e2ia4$jaq@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <822361104snz@lofgren.demon.co.uk> In message <822361104snz@lofgren.demon.co.uk> "Niels M. Sampath" writes: > In article <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> > tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu "Thornton Shepherd" writes: > > [[[ cross-posted to s.a.a by RNA, m.t.a-i comoderator ]]] > > > > I caught a very brief news flash on the BBC World Service this morning that > > mentioned a bankruptcy at Fokker Aircraft of the Netherlands. This was a > > surprise to me because I had noticed a dramatic rise in orders for Fokker > > aircraft over the last few months. I had also read about Daimler Benz' recent > > pledges of support for its ailing subsidiary. Does anyone know the real story > ? > > What's going on? > > > > Thornton > > > Daimler-Benz has withdrawn and its up to the Dutch Govt. now. > -- > Niels This could also be bad news for Shorts of Belfast who make wing components for Fokker. Jim From news Tue Jan 23 19:27:38 1995 Path: ditka!daver!news.cerf.net!newsserver.sdsc.edu!newshub.csu.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu!decwrl!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Fokker Bankruptcy Date: 23 Jan 1996 10:58:20 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4e3b4c$3us@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> My understanding of the Fokker crisis is less than clear because of a screwup at Clarinet, which managed to route stories about Fokker just about everywhere _but clari.biz.industry.aviation. Idiots. Anyway, from a NYTimes article that appeared in the San Jose Mercury- News this morning (Jan 23) the facts appear to be these: Daimler-Benz has walked away from Fokker, taking $4.2 billion dollar loss in the process, almost all of which can be traced to Fokker or other DASA (German Aerospace) subsidiaries. The Dutch government, as of Monday night, says that it will not help Fokker either. Bankrupcty thus appears inevitable. What I have not seen, yet, is the definitive statement that is has, in fact, gone belly-up. Assuming it has, in fact, gone bankrupt, this is a tremendously important event in world aerospace. Historically, Fokker was one of the pioneers in aircraft manufacture, all the way back to the Triplane (of Red Baron fame), the Fokker Trimotor, and so forth. It's a sad loss of a great name. Far more importantly for the modern age, however, is that it establishes the principle that a European government can let an aerospace company fail. This has dire implications for the rest of EU aerospace, in particular the French industry which has yet to be reorganized. The Dutch government is to be congratulated on its bravery, and I am sure they will expect no less of other governments in the EU in the years to come. What's more, this gives the European Commission a handy precedent to lean on in their battles to curb future subsidy. On the other hand, I'm sure that there is discreet celebration in BAe headquarters. Even if Fokker is rescued by Bombardier (which has an interest since its Shorts subsidiary is a major subcontractor of Fokker---might Bombardier perhaps rescue the F70/100 program while letting the F50 lapse?) the F70/100 line will surely suffer because of the uncertainty. Avro will be the most direct beneficiary. It is also a big black eye for Daimler-Benz. Their attempt to build a conglomerate on top of their auto operation is in tatters. It's drained enormous amounts of money and diverted their attention from their Mercedes operation. It leaves them with a commercial aerospace division comprising of a largely moribund aeroengine operation (MTU), Dornier, which really only makes the 328 these days and isn't exactly in the best of health, and the German part of the Airbus operation. Adding salt to the wounds is the recent success of the more narrowly focussed BMW/RR foray into aeroengines. No, it's not the best of times in Stuttgart. RNA From news Tue Jan 23 19:27:38 1995 Path: ditka!daver!news.cerf.net!newsserver.sdsc.edu!acsc.com!news.trw.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!gatech!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!unix.sri.com!news.Stanford.EDU!Think.COM!sandee From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 23 Jan 1996 10:10:24 -0800 Organization: TMC Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4e2uog$cmc@bone.think.com> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <822361104snz@lofgren.demon.co.uk> In article <822361104snz@lofgren.demon.co.uk>, "Niels M. Sampath" writes: |> In article <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> |> tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu "Thornton Shepherd" writes: |> |> > [[[ cross-posted to s.a.a by RNA, m.t.a-i comoderator ]]] |> > |> > I caught a very brief news flash on the BBC World Service this morning that |> > mentioned a bankruptcy at Fokker Aircraft of the Netherlands. This was a |> > surprise to me because I had noticed a dramatic rise in orders for Fokker |> > aircraft over the last few months. I had also read about Daimler Benz' rec ent |> > pledges of support for its ailing subsidiary. Does anyone know the real st ory |> |> Daimler-Benz has withdrawn and its up to the Dutch Govt. now. Fokker last year made a loss of $600M on a production of $1.5B. They have plenty of orders, but they have been selling below cost. DASA, who is the majority owner, has been making up the losses, which contributed to DASA's own deficit of $4B over 1995. On Jan 22nd, DASA went to the Dutch Govt and asked for a one-time subsidy of $1.5B. The Dutch Govt, having already spent billions on Fokker in recent years, refused. Thereupon DASA stopped the support for Fokker, and the company is going to be closed down (I understand the decision is final on all sides). Fokker has been building airplanes since 1911 or thereabouts and has 7,000 employees left (there have been plenty of layoffs already lately). This from Dutch news. Please excuse any errors I may have made in currency conversions. Daan Sandee sandee@think.com Burlington, MA From news Wed Jan 24 03:26:09 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!Think.COM!sandee From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 23 Jan 1996 21:38:51 -0800 Organization: TMC Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4e3ert$icc@bone.think.com> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <822361104snz@lofgren.demon.co.uk> <4e2uog$cmc@bone.think.com> In article <4e2uog$cmc@bone.think.com>, sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes: |> |> Fokker last year made a loss of $600M on a production of $1.5B. They have |> plenty of orders, but they have been selling below cost. DASA, who is |> the majority owner, has been making up the losses, which contributed to |> DASA's own deficit of $4B over 1995. There is an article in today's New York Times (page D-1). One correction to the above : the $4B loss over 1995 is that of Daimler-Benz, not of DASA, their aerospace division. Otherwise, my numbers were reasonably accurate. The NYT does not confirm, however, what I heard from Dutch news : that after not getting support from the Dutch govt, Daimler's board officially pulled the plug on Fokker. |> On Jan 22nd, DASA went to the Dutch Govt and asked for a one-time subsidy |> of $1.5B. The Dutch Govt, having already spent billions on Fokker in |> recent years, refused. Thereupon DASA stopped the support for Fokker, |> and the company is going to be closed down (I understand the decision is |> final on all sides). Fokker has been building airplanes since 1911 or |> thereabouts and has 7,000 employees left (there have been plenty of layoffs |> already lately). |> |> This from Dutch news. Please excuse any errors I may have made in currency |> conversions. Daan Sandee sandee@think.com Burlington, MA From news Wed Jan 24 03:39:23 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!news From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 23 Jan 1996 21:40:31 -0800 Organization: Concord World Travel Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4e3okj$v8l@alpha.ftech.net> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd), in article "FOKKER BANKRUPTCY?" on 22 Jan 1996 14:55:14 -0800, wrote: >[[[ cross-posted to s.a.a by RNA, m.t.a-i comoderator ]]] >I caught a very brief news flash on the BBC World Service this morning that >mentioned a bankruptcy at Fokker Aircraft of the Netherlands. This was a >surprise to me because I had noticed a dramatic rise in orders for Fokker >aircraft over the last few months. I had also read about Daimler Benz' recent >pledges of support for its ailing subsidiary. Does anyone know the real story? >What's going on? Fokker NV has been plunged into crisis after Daimler Benz, its main shareholder, withdrew its financial support. (DB itself is in a poor situation.) Its shares have been suspended and the latest news is that Fokker is to seek court protection from its creditors. The court order would apply to three aircraft units. The company's 7,800+ jobs must be at risk, not to mention another 1,500 at Belfast-based Shorts (which makes wings for Fokker) plus up to another 1,500 jobs in Germany. It is already apparent that suppliers such as Rolls Royce will not help out, and I also understand that the Netherlands government will not bail out Fokker. The writing looks on the wall for this 76-year-old company. Fokker has been in the very competitive regional jet market and its prospects have been further damaged by the weak US dollar. On a related subject, it now looks most unlikely that Fokker will be in a position to tender for BA's 60 short and medium-haul jets, an order worth over $1bn. This leaves Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Airbus and Avro in the running. Roger Chung-Wee Concord World Travel, 278 Wightman Road, Hornsey, London N8 0LX. Tel: +44(0)181-342 8400 Fax: +44(0)181-348 0822 *** Long-haul and Caribbean Specialist *** From news Wed Jan 24 04:04:36 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: KCBP99A@prodigy.com (Robert Hood) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: N.America's last deHavilland COMET Date: 23 Jan 1996 23:08:35 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4e4jsc$pis@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> References: <4ddcck$pav@gsb-crown.stanford.edu> <4djf7i$rsk@kragar.kei.com> <4e1d5a$690@feenix.metronet.com> [[[ An email reply is probably most appropriate --- RNA m.t.a-i comoderator ]]] Hi! Just a reminder, the original purpose of this particular post was to look for information about Comet aircraft... If anyone reading this knows where Comet information, Comet parts, or Comet literature can be found, a response would be appreciated. The locations of any remaining Comet 'Gate Guardians' is also sought. Advance thanks & no, the USAF did not fly Comets. Bob Hood, for the Museum of Flight --- kcbp99a@prodigy.com From news Wed Jan 24 07:03:04 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!maths.tcd.ie!not-for-mail From: Michael Carley Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Fokker Bankruptcy Date: 24 Jan 1996 05:42:48 -0800 Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4e51km$i7i@bell.maths.tcd.ie> References: <4e3b4c$3us@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >It is also a big black eye for Daimler-Benz. Their attempt to build >a conglomerate on top of their auto operation is in tatters. It's >drained enormous amounts of money and diverted their attention from >their Mercedes operation. It leaves them with a commercial aerospace >division comprising of a largely moribund aeroengine operation (MTU), >Dornier, which really only makes the 328 these days and isn't exactly My understanding of it was that Fokker was always in trouble once DASA took over. As things stood, DASA had two companies trying to sell similar planes into similar markets (Fokker 50 versus Do 328). It looked as if one would have to go and it was always going to be Fokker. Why would DASA want to compete against itself? -- "You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John) Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie Home page From news Wed Jan 24 07:03:05 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!incl17.hpl.hp.com!jtv From: jtv@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Johan van der Veen) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 24 Jan 1996 05:44:09 -0800 Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> In article <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu>, tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepher d) writes: > I caught a very brief news flash on the BBC World Service this morning that > mentioned a bankruptcy at Fokker Aircraft of the Netherlands. This was a > surprise to me because I had noticed a dramatic rise in orders for Fokker > aircraft over the last few months. I had also read about Daimler Benz' recent > pledges of support for its ailing subsidiary. Does anyone know the real story ? > What's going on? Fokker's big problem has been that its costs are expressed in Dutch guilders and their sales are in US dollars. The guilder has become harder and harder and a dollar hasn't been worth much less expressed in guilders for a very long time. Add to this that Fokker still uses a lot of people instead of machines to build a plane, people who are paid (high) salaries in Dutch guilders. Also, Fokker invested a huge amount of money to develop the F50 and F100 at the same time. Fokker has been selling quite well, but recently they had to sell at or under production cost! I'm quite sad that it looks like Fokker is going bankrupt. They have a proud history, supplying the German air force in the 1st World War with the planes that made the Red Baron, Manfred von Richthofen famous, rising from their ashes after the 2nd World War (in which the company was totally destroyed) and producing a bestseller in the form of the Fokker F27 Friendship, which is still flying in many third world countries. However, there is still a chance that the Dutch government will decide that it costs less to inject yet more money than to let Fokker go bankrupt (keeping in mind the welfare system in the Netherlands - a huge amount of people suddenly becoming jobless). *If* they are bailed out once again, it is clear that something has to change, or in one or two years the same thing will happen again. It would be good if Fokker could come to terms with BAe and German, French and Italian regional jet builders, to form a kind of consortium like Airbus. Hans. From news Sat Jan 27 09:27:47 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!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: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Jan 1996 16:10:09 GMT Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/488-2590 - 817/571-0400)) Approved: olesen@metronet.com Message-ID: <4edip1$lkj@feenix.metronet.com> References: Nicolas E. Murat (vis@elaine47.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : On 10 Jan 1996, Jennings Heilig wrote: : > All I can say is, Boeing has been building airliners since 1956. Airbus : > is a committee (at best). Boeing listens to it's customers, Airbus : > treats them like it's the customer's privilege to buy airplanes from : > Airbus. Prove your point beyond an unshakable fact. I work for an Airbus customer, and they've performed on par with our requests as a customer. And, before you start making the statements, look at history. Boeing had a "take it or leave it" attitude at one point in the 1950's. See my post in rec.travel.air about their refusal to widen the fuselage on the 707. Most of their potential customers went with the DC-8 with the exception of Pan Am. AA refused to order without the fuselage, so Boeing finally agreed to listen to their customer. But not after losing orders from Delta, Northwest, United and Eastern. They learned their mistakes, but only after the loss of billions of dollars in sales. If they were really the customer focused organization that you make them attention to their labor relations, and avoid the strikes that their customers have had to tolerate over the past few years... : As a matter of fact, Airbus does as much as it can to accomodate Fed Ex. And they've done a lot for AA. I'm sure that they've also paid special attention to United, Northwest, America West, Air Canada and Canadian. Perhaps it is just because these are North American carriers who are also Boeing customers. But then again, perhaps their service philosophy isn't so different from Boeing or McDonnell Douglas's... : > This just points out one of the differences in corporate philosophy. I : > have nothing to do with either company, but I feel *much* better getting : > on a Boeing airplane than an Airbus. Oh please, spare us. Painting an aircraft with the wrong shade of purple exposes a fundemental flaw in their corporate attitude towards customers? Are you in law school by any chance?... E -- | 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 news Sat Jan 27 14:22:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!CHIP From: chipper@atc.boeing.com (Chip Taylor) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 27 Jan 1996 12:50:56 -0800 Organization: Operations Technology Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4e3okj$v8l@alpha.ftech.net> Question: since DB, DASA, and Fokker were part of the Airbus consortium, what impact will this have on Airbus? How are the other members reacting? For every problem there's a clear, obvious solution that's totally wrong From news Sat Jan 27 14:22:01 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!judkins.demon.co.uk!martin From: Martin Judkins Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 27 Jan 1996 12:52:04 -0800 Organization: Judders Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4ee39k$887@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> In article , Johan van der Veen writes > snip > >I'm quite sad that it looks like Fokker is going bankrupt. They have >a proud history, supplying the German air force in the 1st World War >with the planes that made the Red Baron, Manfred von Richthofen famous, One of his triplanes is sitting in one of Fokkers hangars in Amsterdam - could it be one of their most valuable assets? >and producing a bestseller in the form of the >Fokker F27 Friendship, which is still flying in many third world >countries. > Excuse me! There are many operating in the UK and Europe :) >However, there is still a chance that the Dutch government will decide >that it costs less to inject yet more money than to let Fokker go >bankrupt (keeping in mind the welfare system in the Netherlands - >a huge amount of people suddenly becoming jobless). > >Hans. Condensed from The Times, London, 24th Jan:- Dutch Parliament holding emergency debate today. Ministers expected to agree bridging loan facilities for several months to enable viable parts to be rescued (defence manufacturing and aircraft maintenance). Future bleak for regional aircraft assembly. About $2.5 million needed per day to stay afloat. Shares remain suspended. Directors seeking protection from creditors. -- Martin Judkins From news Sat Jan 27 14:27:57 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!hphalle8f.informatik.tu-muenchen.de!kellerw From: Wolfgang Keller Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Fokker Bankruptcy Date: 27 Jan 1996 13:07:14 -0800 Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: References: <4e3b4c$3us@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <4e51km$i7i@bell.maths.tcd.ie> On 24 Jan 1996, Michael Carley wrote: > My understanding of it was that Fokker was always in trouble > once DASA took over. As things stood, DASA had two companies > trying to sell similar planes into similar markets (Fokker 50 > versus Do 328). It looked as if one would have to go and it > was always going to be Fokker. Why would DASA want to compete > against itself? > afaik the Fokker and the Dornier aircraft never competed against each other. Instead, when Daimler bought into Fokker they wanted to build up a more complete product line for the regional aircraft market. But, with Fokker being already in deep financial trouble _before_ Daimler bought in, Daimler underestimated simply the amount of money necessary to restructure Fokker. And as at this time there's afaik NO regional aircraft manufacturer who's making profits by selling their aircraft, Daimler simply didn't see any way to keep on pouring money into Fokker. Bye, -- Wolfgang Keller kellerw@informatik.tu-muenchen.de Imagine what life on earth would be like if everyone behaved the same way as you do! Kant, sligthly adjusted to nowadays language From news Sat Jan 27 14:37:41 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: kester@euronet.nl (Kester Meijer) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Fokker Bankruptcy Date: 27 Jan 1996 13:26:45 -0800 Organization: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4e6gdd$6p@news.euro.net> References: <4e3b4c$3us@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> The Dutch Newspapers reported today that the main part of Fokker is in the Dutch version of Chapter 11 (Aviation, Aircraft, Administration and Holding company). Other subsiduaries will be able to continue as they are healthy businesses. These subs are maintenance, electronics, special products (defense) and space. 2300 employees out of 7900 (total) keep their job. Fokker has protection for 4 weeks, in which it has to find a new partner (Bombardier is mentioned) of other financial resources. Main objective is to keep the Fokker Group together, even though this is a tough call. So far no orders have been cancelled. Employees have started a fund-raising campaign to help out. Schrempp (Dasa) has finally dropped his "love-baby". Let's hope his board still loves him. Kester Meijer From news Sat Jan 27 15:16:33 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!mail2news.demon.co.uk!termcon.demon.co.uk From: Paul Jones Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Subject: British Airways Web Site Date: 27 Jan 1996 14:20:15 -0800 Organization: Termcon Systems Developement 0378-494904 Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <82449121wnr@termcon.demon.co.uk> British Airways, the World's Favourite Airline has just announced that it's web site is now open at the following address http://www.british-airways.com/ Online schedules and information about the airline. -- Paul Jones - Terminal Control British Airways Birmingham. Home email:paul@termcon.demon.co.uk - paulj@waverider.co.uk From news Sat Jan 27 18:35:33 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 27 Jan 1996 17:42:19 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4eek9r$afo@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4e3okj$v8l@alpha.ftech.net> In article , Chip Taylor wrote: >Question: since DB, DASA, and Fokker were part of the Airbus consortium, what >impact will this have on Airbus? How are the other members reacting? Fokker was never part of Airbus. DB is only part of Airbus through the DASA subsidiary. It's a wake-up call to all of European aerospace that you can't count on national govts to bail out their national champions. RNA From news Sun Jan 28 12:39:19 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: lorck@sn.no (Petter Lorck) Newsgroups: eunet.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics.simulation Subject: Universal Navigation Corporation. Date: 28 Jan 1996 11:36:49 -0800 Organization: SN Internett Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <31092f09.43343623@news.sn.no> Hello all ! Does anyone know if Universal Navigation Corporation, the makers of UNS1 B Flight Management System, is on the web somewhere ? Or maybe some other form of information on Internet, on that company ? Thank you. Later, dudes ! Petter. From news Sun Jan 28 14:58:44 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: WN flights/city distribution Date: 28 Jan 1996 12:44:39 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna Message-ID: <4egn7n$kah@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Fooling around with the Southwest Jan 10 schedule I calculated the number of flights out of each of their cities. I graph it below, with each bucket five wide ending with the number shown (hence "25" means "21-25"). A city with a number of departing flights in the bucket range is indicated with an X. It would be interesting to see the distributions for other airlines. I suspect that for most US majors they would be vastly fatter at the low end and at the high ends, and a much emptier middle, reflecting a few heavy hubs with a greater number of lighter spokes. 10 XXXXXX 15 XXXXXX 20 XXXXXXXX 25 XX 30 XXX 35 X 40 XXXX 45 XX 50 XXX 55 XXX 60 65 X 70 75 X 80 85 90 X 95 100 X 105 110 X 115 X 120 125 130 X 135 140 XX 145 150 155 160 165 170 X RNA From news Tue Jan 30 15:43:42 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: kester@euronet.nl (Kester Meijer) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 30 Jan 1996 11:33:41 -0800 Organization: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) wrote: >[[[ cross-posted to s.a.a by RNA, m.t.a-i comoderator ]]] >I caught a very brief news flash on the BBC World Service this morning that >mentioned a bankruptcy at Fokker Aircraft of the Netherlands. This was a >surprise to me because I had noticed a dramatic rise in orders for Fokker >aircraft over the last few months. I had also read about Daimler Benz' recent >pledges of support for its ailing subsidiary. Does anyone know the real story? >What's going on? >Thornton 29 jan 96 9am CET Samsung Aero from South Korea confirmed being interested in buying Fokker; bet they want to have a closer look at the books before putting any money in it. It is a cheap way to purchase a lot of knowledge. Meanwhile the Dutch government has put up some funds to keep Fokker floating until they know what to do with it. Some parts of Fokker can go on, on their own as a healty business. Kester Meijer From news Tue Jan 30 15:46:50 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!netnews From: xjetjock@ix.netcom.com (Justin K. Knaplund ) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Fokker Tri-Wing Drawing Needed Date: 30 Jan 1996 11:41:15 -0800 Organization: Netcom Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4ein9j$7q5@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4e3okj$v8l@alpha.ftech.net> <4eek9r$afo@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> [[[ Email responses onlyplease --- RNA, m.t.a-i comoderator ]]] Sorry for this off-the-wall posting, I read this newsgroup and thought someone might be able to help: A friend is in need of a drawing of a Fokker Tri-Wing appropriate for silkscreening on the back of a T-shirt. Any assistance in obtaining one would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Justin Knaplund | Austin, TX \_(o)_/ [xjetjock@ix.netcom.com] From news Tue Jan 30 17:49:57 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: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 30 Jan 1996 12:53:33 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> I have mixed feelings about this proposed rescue. On the one hand, it keeps alive a manufacturer that should, in economic grounds, be dead. This is not good. On the other hand, Samsung and the Chinese seem determined to build the AE100, despite the fact that it has a snowball's chance in hell of being an economic success and will simply end up adding more capacity to an industry that already has far too much. To the extent that the Fokker purchase replaces an all-new AE100 (that is to say, the F100 becomes the AE100), this is probably a good thing. The best thing, however, would be for Fokker to die and for the Koreans and the Chinese to stop this nonsense about building the AE100. So far as I can tell, there is only one company regularly making a profit making airliners, and that is Boeing. It makes no sense, no sense at all, that others want to join this party. It seems entirely a matter of national virility. Ah well, maybe 50 years from now, when we're still flying 777s, the whole thing will seem less glamorous. RNA In article <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net>, Kester Meijer wrote: >29 jan 96 9am CET >Samsung Aero from South Korea confirmed being interested in buying >Fokker; bet they want to have a closer look at the books before >putting any money in it. It is a cheap way to purchase a lot of >knowledge. Meanwhile the Dutch government has put up some funds to >keep Fokker floating until they know what to do with it. Some parts of >Fokker can go on, on their own as a healty business. > >Kester Meijer From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: iandhhs@cadvision.com Subject: 777 drogue chute on tail Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:36 Organization: CADVision In viewing a recent re-run of '21st Century Jet' which highlighted the 777 I noted that during ground trials and the initial flight the following. At the top of the fin there was what appeared to be a small parachute drogue on a line some 10 to 20 metrs in length. Difficult to determine the exact size as scale on the 777 is hard to establish. Any one else noticed and, more to the point, what was the purpose of such a device. Also, seems the dihedral, at least when in flight, is significant. I have a print of a side on shot and both wingtips are in view above the fuselage. Ian Ian Kershaw, Executive Director Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (403) 282 7006 fax Visit our web site at- http://tiger.ab.ca/hearing From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Subsidies ... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:37 I've read comments about European subsidies a few times recently. All the same kind (unacceptable government interference with free economy). However, living in a country where opinions are biased the other way, I've heard and read many times that the only difference between government subsidies in Europe and the US is that European ones are called subsidies ... Any comment ? JF -- Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr) Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile TOULOUSE From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Winglets... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:37 In article , Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) wrote: > The theory behind winglets is to INCREASE the EFFECTIVE length of the wing > without increasing the SPAN.... > The winglet itself (on a 747-400) is relatively light as it is made of carbon > fibre and graphite composites. So weight is not really the issue. Actually, weight is a big issue on the 747 winglet. I doubt if you'll see Boeing use them again. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sbroon@aol.com (SBroon) Subject: Re: Winglets... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: sbroon@aol.com (SBroon) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:37 I don't think that makes sense. How can an airfoil mounted 90 degrees to the horizontal increase the effective length of a wing? The purpose of a wing is to generate lift. That is hard to do at 90 tilt! I think the benefit of the winglet is reduction of the wingtip vortex. A vortex is the air that spirals at the tip. If you watch the tip through a cloud, sometimes you can see it. Generating a vortex takes energy...if you don't make one, you use less energy and fly more effeciently. From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Factors affecting A320 US record. 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 Feb 96 14:15:37 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>And contrary to popular beleif, Airbus does not build all of its >>components. > >I find it very difficult to believe that this is a "popular belief" >given the commonly cited U.S.-content in Airbus products (even if you >ignore the engines), and in general the necessity in the business of >subcontracting work to companies in countries whose airlines are going >to be buying your planes. > >Perhaps the most astonishing bit of non-Airbus production on an Airbus >plane is the original engine nacelle and pylon on the A300. And as a bit of apocryphal evidence, a mechanic friend was rather annoyed when AI products were purchased by his airline--the consequence of which was that he and all other light maintenance shops on way stops had to maintain both metric and British tooling sets. Heavy components on the Airbus products tend to come from American manufacturers (fuel pumps, hydraulic pumps, actuators, etc), while everything else is European. In reality, there isn't much of a problem for professional mechanics to maintain duplicate sets. But it does increase the administrative overhead, and increases the amount of tooling one has to haul out to the airplane. :-) > Airbus >did not really want to spend the substantial sums needed to design >these components, Speaking of which, the latest Aviation Week concludes with the interesting comment (in relation to the ramifications of transforming the consortium into a "real company" operation): "As a result of such a complex industrial structure and financial issues, Airbus Industrie does not have a clear view of its real production costs, French Sen. Jean-Francois Le Grand recently pointed out." -- 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 Feb 6 14:15:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Factors affecting A320 US record. References: <4djlvf$fv9@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <821977208.10600@chequers.plsys.co.uk> <1996Jan19.113759@France.Sun.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:38 On 25 Jan 96 00:55:02 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) said: >And contrary to popular beleif, Airbus does not build all of its >components. KS> I find it very difficult to believe that this is a "popular KS> belief" given the commonly cited U.S.-content in Airbus products KS> (even if you ignore the engines), and in general the necessity in KS> the business of subcontracting work to companies in countries KS> whose airlines are going to be buying your planes. And when the airplane carrying wings from the UK to France is on the evening news, either in connection with some sort of delay to the Space Shuttle program because the plane is so busy or because the Shuttle stopped using the plane or because Airbus has acquired a new airplane. -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cra@servtech.com (Curtis R. Anderson) Subject: Re: Factors affecting A320 US record. References: <4djlvf$fv9@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <821977208.10600@chequers.plsys.co.uk> <1996Jan19.113759@France.Sun.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gleepy's Henhouse Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:38 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >Perhaps the most astonishing bit of non-Airbus production on an Airbus >plane is the original engine nacelle and pylon on the A300. Airbus >did not really want to spend the substantial sums needed to design >these components, and approached McDonnell Douglas to see if MD would >sell them those parts from the DC-10. To the utter astonishment of >just about everyone, MD said yes. (Actually, they may have been >produced by someone other than MD using MD's design, I'm not entirely >sure.) Might that have been Rohr Industries, which has since set up a plant in Toulouse to make the nacelle assemblies? Rohr seems to make the bulk of the nacelles for jet engines these days, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Tu-204M uses them as well. :-) -- Curtis R. Anderson, "Official Chicken Breeder of Hill 10", SP 2.5?, KoX URLs: http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ mailto:cra@servtech.com ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ Opinions mine (not Service Tech's!) unless marked otherwise!!! From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:38 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > In article "P. Wezeman" writes: > > In a recent exchange of postings in rec.travel.air several people have > >mentioned conplaints of a lack of proper force feedback in the Airbus A320 > >sidestick control. Could someone who is familiar with the system please > >describe it briefly? > The joystick is not coupled. That means that the two joysticks are com- > pletely independent critters. Their inputs are algebraically added. If > one pilot pulls full-left and the other full-right, nothing will happen. I had heard the left-plus-right-equals-nothing formula was the case on the original version of the system, but that it has subsequently been changed. Imagine this scenario: both pilots suddenly become aware of another airplane rapidly approaching on a collision course. The instinctive reaction of most pilots is to turn toward the window that is next to him. The captain slams his stick left, the first officer slams his stick right. Result: the plane continues straight ahead into the collision. I believe the very real possibility of something like this occuring caused Airbus to have the stick authority software rewritten, but I don't know how the priorities are assigned, if they have, in fact, changed it. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:39 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: >The joystick is not coupled. That means that the two joysticks are com- >pletely independent critters. Their inputs are algebraically added. If >one pilot pulls full-left and the other full-right, nothing will happen. > >There is no backfeed. The joysticks do not reflect aerodynamic forces. > >An override capability exists; it's a button in the grip. When one pilot >has overriden another, an arrow pointing to the other pilot flashes in the >glareshield. There is also an aural annunciator. This override, in effect, >"turns off" the other stick, until the pilot tries to use it, again. The pilot in the left seat always has priority if both override buttons are pressed so the captain can always have control of the aircraft. This is to prevent both pilots from taking different action with a resultant nothing. From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:39 > The pilot in the left seat always has priority if both override buttons are > pressed so the captain can always have control of the aircraft. > This is to prevent both pilots from taking different action with a resultant > nothing. I have not been able to find anything which suggests this. A recent FCOM from a major carrier operating the airplane, the original Aeroformation training materials, and a variety of academic papers published by Airbus engineers all suggest that the two seats have a peer arrangement. There is no bias in favor of either seat in terms of basic control inputs, and as far as the override button, the last one to hit it gets it. There are a number of reasons why one does not want to assign bias to a seat: - training operations frequently put a training captain in the right seat, with a trainee in the left. - It violates the Pilot Flying/Pilot Not Flying paradigm (which assigns distinct responsibilities to each pilot, each of whom are (usually) trained to the same technical proficiency level). In this paradigm, the PF is directly in charge with the airplane's flight guidance; the PNF handles all other activities (radio, navigation, checklists, etc). Since the PF is "in the loop", if we're going to assign priority to either pilot, the PF should have it. The PNF will almost certainly have his head down working on the FMGS. - Situations arise in scheduling when two captains are in a cockpit. Who sits in the left seat is often determined by professional courtesy, but the aircraft commander is often determined by a coin flip. SO, I kind of doubt this. But since the Airbus software can be revised, I welcome any corrections. Please cite your source. :-) I'd also be interested in hearing from pilots or mechanics for airlines where this does and does not exist: could even be a stupid customer option. :-) -- 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 Feb 6 14:15:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Airbus A320 Flight Controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:39 I would like to thank Mr. Dorsett, Mr. Gillies, and Mr. Reeves for their replies to my posting about the operation of the A-320 side stick. Mr. Reeves wrote, "The side stick can be viewed as commanding A.O.A." Lift being proportional to the square of airspeed at a given angle of attack, would I be correct to infer that if a given position of the side stick gives an acceleration of one G at a certain airspeed, then the same position of the side stick at twice that airspeed would give an acceleration of four Gs? ( I realize that the system would not actually allow the loading to go this high.) In roll, does a given deflection of the side stick command a given roll rate regardless of airspeed, or does it command a given control surface movement, i.e. a higher roll rate at a higher speed? Thank you again, Peter Wezeman From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mattaic@aol.com (MattAIC) Subject: 757 question References: <4egn7n$kah@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:39 757 question: Why is the fuselage aft of the wings about 1 foot thicker, or taller than the fuselage in front of the wings? -Matt L. Seattle, Washington From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hazlett@moon.pr.erau.edu (Kathryn Hazlett) Subject: 727 rudder Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, WEST Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:40 Why does the 727 have a two piece rudder? What are the advantages or disadvantages of a two piece rudder? From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ahsiung@bbn.com (Anita Hsiung) Subject: 757 jitter Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:40 Has anyone noticed that if you sit aft of the wings in a 757, when the aircraft makes a maneuver, there is a slight "jitter" from side to side? It doesn't happen on 737s, nor 747s. -- Anita -- -- --------->> Anita Hsiung, Technical Consultant <<--------------- | BBN Domain Corporation | Data Analysis Suite | | Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA | ahsiung@bbn.com | | "Software Smart, Process Perfect" | 617-873-2854/492-6854 FAX | From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:40 > The autopilot has authority over the speed brakes? I don't think so. What's > your source? > For information, the A320 Auto-Pilot have authority over spoilers 2,3,4 and 5. Speed Brake are achived by the spoilers 2,3,4 so... Francis -- Francis JAMBON | Equipe Ingenierie des Interfaces Homme-Machine | Human-Computer Interfaces Engineering Group Informations sur/on WWW -> http://www-lgi.imag.fr/Les.Personnes/Francis.Jambon/ Telephone / Phone : (+33) 76 63 59 70, Telecopieur / Fax : (+33) 76 44 66 75 ___________ CLIPS-IMAG, B203, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France ___________ From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:41 >The reports from the feds say the spoilers were slightly deployed for decent. >Normally the pilots won't try to modulate the spoilers to get a correct >decent because it is too hard.....but the autopilot will, very rapidly. The autopilot does not have the authority to deploy speedbrakes for descent. If the flight managment system is being used, it will display the message "Drag Required" if speedbrakes need to be deployed to maintain the descent path input by the flightcrew. The speedbrakes have to be deployed manually. (Note: The 757 is a very "clean" airplane and the use of speedbrakes would normally be necessary in any kind of expedited descent.) From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TMC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:42 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: |> In article chrisddr@aol.com (chrisddr) writes: |> >Lets think. |> >The reports from the feds say the spoilers were slightly deployed for decent. |> >Normally the pilots won't try to modulate the spoilers to get a correct |> >decent because it is too hard..... |> |> They may very well modify them to control speed, though. That's what |> they're there for. |> |> >but the autopilot will, very rapidly. |> |> The autopilot has authority over the speed brakes? I don't think so. What's |> your source? The WSJ for 1/8 had a front page article about the crash, specifically addressing this point. Most of what they say confirms other reports, then they claim - they only needed 200 ft for safety - with spoilers retracted, they would probably have made this - Airbus jets (A320, A330, A340) have computer-controlled protection that would have retracted the spoilers when near stalling speed (i.e., when other planes have the stick shaker activated - and AA965 has the stick shaker going in the last few seconds). The main point the reporter wanted to make that an Airbus jet might not have crashed, and he went on about how Airbus elects to let the computer fly the plane, while Boeing prefers the pilot. (He furthermore claims that the MD-80 does not automatically retract spoilers when the stick shaker is activated, and cites pilots that say that the L-1011 does.) I don't want to start another battle in the Airbus vs. Boeing wars, but I found this viewpoint, emanating as it did from the mouthpiece of American capitalism, noteworthy. Daan Sandee sandee@think.com Burlington, MA From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Gunnar Aaboe Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oslonett Public Access Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:42 dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) wrote: >Ducting is not a problem on an ILS, if the procedure is correctly >flown. What can be more serious problem is picking up a false lobe of >the glideslope (happened to me once during training as an exercise), >but again flying the procedure will prevent this. The fixes used along >with altitude vary in their type (VOR, DME, NDB, RNAV, 75MHz marker), >but are not changed appreciably by ducting over the ranges and >geometries used. I understand that the ILS consists of one vertical and one horisontal beem. The glidescope is on 330 Mhz and the vertical is at apr.110 Mhz. Let say that the vertical part is 5 deg. off. The pilot will still get the correct altitude, and I can't see how he will discover any problem. (He will see himself right on the cross) Let say he follows an ILS that is affected in som way, which instument is in priority ? We have had a lot of accident in Norway in bad weather (fog, freezing rain, snow) and the pilots have not reported problems. A pilot from Balkan air was making an approach to Oslo Airport (Gardermoen) last year and was 3 km off course and 250 ft over the town Nannestad. There have also been a lot of near accident, discovered by radar operators. "Luftfartsverket" have a special plane for tracing and controlling instruments on airports, but they told me that they had to fly tests i clear weather too be able to monitor the plane with optical instruments. (They will not be able to see the problem.) It seems like they are doing a great job trying to find the reasons to these tradic accident, but it seems like they look to much upon each accident and too less on common factors over time. I should like too see some statistics on this type off accidents. Is it a common factor that accidents happens in bad weather conditions and during landings ? Why is "pilot error" nearly always the reason ? (Is this like the dataoperator unable to find the mistake and clames it is a virus ?) I've been told there is some research reports on this fenomen, but they are not public... - Gunnar Aaboe From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Steve Le-Vien Subject: Re: North Atlantic Tracks [LONG] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: slevien@eggw.demon.co.uk Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:43 In message Jim Wolper wrote: All snipped but it was very good. You may also be interested to know at the London Flow Management Unit (now defunct since 13 Jan, it's all done from Brussels) in an office in Heathrow's Tower they have a monitor (20in or so) with radar plots of traffic over the UK and eastern seaboard of the US and Canada, and track predictions across the ocean. It sure looks crowded! I belive the info comes over from the FAA. -- ____ \ / Steve Le-Vien AFTN: EGGWZPZX || Air Traffic Services Manager tel: +44 1582 395230 || London Luton Airport, UK fax: +44 1582 395381 || slevien@eggw.demon.co.uk My views, not LLA Ltd From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong 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 Feb 96 14:15:44 In article bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) writes: >I realize that this discussion has now moved on to the good old >discussion. But to come back to the subject of the subject >line, I can't help thinking how wrong it sounds in this >specific case. > >Isn't it true that > >1. A good computer would not have taken liberties with procedures, Computers don't have anything to do with procedures. Computers which do try to automate automatic systems checks tend to isolate the pilot from the control loop, which can result in things like flying into the sides of mountains. The current design goal is NOT to freeze the human element out of the loop. Until it is, and the decision has been made to completely elminate the pilot, the reins should be pulled in on these clever engineers and they should be made to design systems which provide appropriate control and feedback, to coin a phrase from Don Norman. >check points etc., and it would not have set up on a short cut thru >a mountain, wouldn't it? Nope. No existing systems take account of those factors. >2. And furthermore, a computer might have remembered about aerodynamic >brakes when finally discovering the mountain? That's what the Wall Street Journal was claiming, and which generated the entire debate. It's a specious argument: an airplane flying into a moun- tain at 200+ knots only has a few seconds between the GPWS warning and impact, and it is not at all clear whether automatic spoiler retraction would have made any difference. -- 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 Feb 6 14:15:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d329p$8dg@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> <1996Jan13.162149.1@eisner.decus.org> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:44 In article , richard@rmit.edu.au says... >rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >>If what you say is true, Airbus is criminally negligent and ought to be >>sued into oblivion. Lucky for them none of the A320 crashes happened in >>the US. > >... yet! WHat with the numbers of 'em that NW and UA alone are flying >around, not to mention the Canadians who seem to be smitten with the >things (I wonder if there's a link between Montreal based carriers and >airbus orders... hmmmm... gotta love those French Canadians ;-) ). Right now certain members of the former government (Progressive Conservatives) are getting a lot of press for maybe getting $ for the selection of the -320 for Air Canada (at that time a crown corporation). Has nothing to do with French Canadians... Alan From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:45 Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr) wrote: > Still nobody suggests that the driver should keep total control on braking > power, because only a few people (probably only race pilots, and not all > of them) are able to apply optimal braking in an emergency situation ... I love these all-purpose sweeping statements. If "nobody suggests..." I guess that means I must be a nobody, because *I* certainly prefer the option to brake creatively in slippery conditions. Under some circumstances it may even be useful to lock the rear wheels. (In Britain, where I grew up, this was known as a "handbrake turn," since the car will tend to rotate if the rear wheels lock, and this effect could be produced by grabbing the handbrake. The same system was used by Southern bootleggers during prohibition, when they were confronted by oncoming law enforcement and needed to turn around and flee as fast as possible.) True, such techniques are beyond the experience or needs of most drivers. But if driver education was as rigorous as pilot training, and focused as fully on emergency situations (including practice time in simulators), you might find a lot of drivers preferring the option to override ABS, and for very good reasons. -- ############################################################ Charles Platt cp@panix.com From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: FMS capability (was: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong) References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:45 bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) writes: > Isn't it true that > 1. A good computer would not have taken liberties with procedures, > check points etc., and it would not have set up on a short cut thru > a mountain, wouldn't it? Yes, assuming the computer had the information about terrain available. However, because of the (correctly) stringent nature of certification rules, the FMS computers on board most equipped aircraft have an upper limit of 1Mword of memory or less (i.e. 2MB), due to the need to show that the electronics industry has experience with the components to have REAL, demonstrated MTBF figures. Given the storage necessary for both a good navigation data base, there just isn't enough room available in the FMS right now for a good high-resolution data base. (The CPUs, by the way, are generally of the 80286-class at best, again because of the need to have enough experience to demonstrate adequate MTBF. Avionics in the very near future will use 486-class CPUs, however.) However, avionics manufacturers aren't ignoring the terrain issue: several are planning on making the next generation GPWS computer use GPS-derived position and a terrain database. They have been in development for a few years already. Of course, in this implementation, it would exist as a separate check, rather than an integrated database for the FMS to use/plan around. > 2. And furthermore, a computer might have remembered about aerodynamic > brakes when finally discovering the mountain? As hinted above, the current aircraft avionics architecture does not integrate the flight control computers / autopilots with GPWS. Therefore, the GPWS would not have direct control over the speedbrakes, which sounds like sound design to me, as false GPWS warnings are not unheard of, and probably don't warrant direct control over the aircraft control surfaces. (BTW, I am personally avoiding any speculation as to the net effect of the speedbrakes on the attempt to pull up until the NTSB releases findings in the AA accident. It may have been "too late".) > Not to say that this really should be a strong argument in the > debate... (I.e., I am not really trying to argue in favor of the > computers, joysticks etc. But it seems to me this particular > accident *really* can't be made into a argument against computers...) I agree; avionics needs to continue to evolve to guard against the holes remaining in the safety. However, thoughtful design taking into account the strengths and weakness of both the human AND the computers ultimately is the best way to keep the skies safe. 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 Feb 6 14:15:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong 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: 06 Feb 96 14:15:46 This has been a facinating thread. However, the eternal debate between Airbus and Boeing philosophies (to which I admit adding) is really diverting attention from appropriate focus. Most accidents have multiple "contributers" (in safety analysis terms). This complex accident has many. The official investigation will take some time and will extend far beyond the systems in the airplane. It will examine the entire Air Traffic Management (ATM) system involved. It will look for crew failures (procedures, training, execution), ATC failures (same set), ground navigation sources, and yes...airplane systems. A complete answer will require a comprehensive investigation. We all have to step back and take a global view of how we are operating our aircraft within this ATM system; in the investigation of accidents (which I believe the NTSB does today), design of airspace utilzation procedures, and design of aircraft/ground ATC systems. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ray Carini Subject: 307 Stratoliner and Dash 80 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:47 The Boeing News on Friday, January 26, 1996 had a nice article about the the 307 Stratoliner and the 367-80 that I thought would be of interest to the group. There were 6 nice color photos which, if I had my web page up and running, I would have scanned and displayed them. The captions with the photos are quite informative and I'll post these as separte articles. These are reprinted here with the permission of the Boeing News. -- Ray MOVING HISTORY Looking back marks time and place, and it offers perspective... by Rick Roff Boeing News, Seattle There are few defining products of aviation history that stand out as significatn in this century. Two airplanes that fit the category, the Boeing 307 Stratoliner and the Boeing Model 367-80 -- the prototype of the 707 -- both owned by the Smithsonian, were towed into the safe, dry confies of the Plant II factory in Seattle last weekend. The event itself was significant. It was the first time any aircraft have been moved across East Marginal Way South at Plant II since 1958, when the last Seattle-built B-52F Stratofortress rolled out and was towed from the factory to the Boeing flight line. The four-propeller-powered Stratoliner, although only 10 were built, is best known for being the world's first high-altitude airliner capable of pressurized flight. The Dash 80 was the first jet-powered commercial airplane ever built in the United States and the forerunner for The Boeing Company's current family of aricraft. For the Stratoliner, the move Saturday actually was a return home. It was the last of 10 307s built at Plant II and the last of three delivered in 1940 to Pan American Airways, which named the aircraft Clipper Flying Cloud. It is in Bay 2 of the 2-40 building, where final assembly of 307s took place almost 60 years ago. "It is a rare moment to see an airplane come full circle and return to the very location it was manufactured," said Mark Kempton who was involved in getting the 207 back to Seattle and is in charge of its refurbishment. "It looks right at home." The aircraft is in "miraculous" condition. After a number of ownerships throughout the years, it was "rescued" from a near fateful demise in the late 1960s when it was sold to a company that almost used it for crop-dusting activity -- the chemicals from which could have corroded the aircraft. It was saved in a trade to the National Air and Space Museum in 1972 for a Lockheed Constellation, and ended up on display at the Pima Air Museum in the Arizona desert. On June 1, 1994, the Clipper Flying Cloud was flown to Seattle's Boeing Field, where it was kept in temporary storage. A three-year refurbishing program will return the aircraft to its 1940 appearance. Last fall, the airplane was stripped of its old paint and a test polishing was conducted. When complete the aircraft will have a new interior, thanks to Pan Am retirees, and all four engines will have been rebuild or overhauled. The Dash 80 was owned by Boeing until 1972, when it was donated to the National Air and Space Museum and given temporary residence at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona. For the Boeing Company's 75th anniversary, the aircraft was flown to Seattle where it was refurbished, stripped and repainted. The future for the 307 and Dash 80 remains to be seen. Both were planned for display at the Smithsonian, but they eventually could end up in permanent display in a new wing now being planned at the Museum of Flight. In the meantime, the aircraft can be seen in Bays 2 and 3 of the 2-40 building at Plant II. From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ray Carini Subject: Boeing News Photo Caption, Dash 80 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:48 Reprinted, with permission, from The Boeing News, January 26, 1996. The Boeing 367-80 The Boeing 367-80's history has been dramatic. On April 22, 1952, Boeing President William Allen recommended to the board of directors that the company invest millions of dollars -- $16 million, in fact -- of its own money to build a jet prototype that could have both military and commercial applications. Allen figured the company was doing well enough with military sales to risk some of its profits, and the board concurred. Work began almost immediately at Renton. "We felt strongly that it was high time some American manufacturer took the plunge, got a jet transport off of paper and into the air," Allen was quoted later in Boeing Magazine. With the prototype nearing completion, Allen gambled again by authorizing the use of company funds to gear up engineering and tooling for a production aircraft. There were no orders. At 2:14 p.m. on July 15, 1954, test pilot Tex Johnston gave the Dash 80 throttle and released the brakes, lifting off for its first flight. Three weeks later, the Air Force announced an initial order for 29 tanker vrsions, designated as the KC-135. Johnston made a little history of his own with the Dash 80 prototype. Much to the surprise of Allen, Johnston did a couple of barrel rolls over Lake Washington during the Gold Cup hydroplane races. Over the years, the Dash 80 was used for a wide variety of tests, and the airplane became one of the most modified in history. From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ray Carini Subject: Boeing News Photo Caption - Boeing 307 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:49 Reprinted, with permission, from The Boeing News, January 26, 1996. Clipper Flying Cloud No. 903 Used in Carib service on Brownsville/Mexico City and Los Angeles/ Mexico City runs. Operated for Air Force in South America by Pan Am 1942 to 1946. Used for daily round trip New York/Bermuda, 1946. Registered ZS-BWV for South Africa but not delivered. Sold to Continental Charters in 1948, and to Bill Conrad, Airline Training Inc., Miami, in 1950. Re-registered NC19903. Sold to Corps d'Aviation del 'Armee d'Haiti 1954 and numbered 2003. Modified with Wright R-1820-47 engines. Operated by COHATA (Compagnie Haitienne de Transports Ariens) to 1957. Named President's Model and used by President of Haiti. Sold in 1957 to Leo Wassenberg, registered N9307R. Operated at Van Nuys and Burbank, Calif., and overhauled at Long Beach in 1960. Reported operated by Resort Airlines. Modified to 45 passenger configuration. Sold to Sonny Nold 1963. Re-registerd N19903. Used at Houston, Texas. Sold to Arkansas Air Freight in 1965. Offered for sale in 1967 at Shreveport, La., for $70,000. Total time in 1967, 20,520 hours, 50 minutes. Sold at U.S. Marshal's sale, Shreveport, La., on 28 May 1969 to Aviation Specialties Co., Falcon Field, Mesa, Ariz. Planned use as sprayer but business did not develop. Used little 1969 through 1971. Traded to Smithsonian Institution in 1972 for a Lockheed Constellation. From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mjtp Subject: Re: 747SP Wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Montana Internet Cooperative Association Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:49 >The flaps do indeed work differently -- the 747SP uses simple flaps >(or maybe double-slotted flaps, I can't recall offhand) instead of the >triple-slotted flaps used on other 747 models. The fairings house the >complex flap activation mechanisms and thus aren't needed on the SP. I belive you are right about the double-slotted flaps, but one major reason was to lessen the A/C's weight, after all it was a long range A/C. Jeff in Helena, AGAIN!!!! *Please do not email me!!!* HAY, we are getting COLOR T.V.'s within a year!!!!! *laughing* From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Simon M. Ellwood" Subject: Re: 747SP Wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bodge it & co. Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:49 In article , Jonathan Eckstein writes > >Do any of you Boeing experts out there know why the wing of the 747SP >lacks the trailing edge fairings that you see on all other 747's? Do >the flaps work differently? The flaps on the SP do not move out on tracks, as they do for the standard 747 (and most other airliners), but utilise a method of swinging pivots. When retracted, these rods/pivots occupy much less vertical space and thus the large flairings of the 747 are not needed. I believe these were adopted because the complex tripple slotted flaps of the standard 747 were not considered necessary for the lower landing weights of the SP. Simon From kls Tue Feb 6 14:15:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Eric Schott Subject: Re: 747SP Wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AccessOne Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 96 14:15:50 > jeckstei@rutcor.rutgers.edu (Jonathan Eckstein) writes: [snip] > why the wing of the 747SP > lacks the trailing edge fairings that you see on all other 747's? Do > the flaps work differently? >>>> The flaps were simplified to reduce structural weight. That weight is put into fuel for range. A very minor side effect is to reduce drag at cruise. The additional lift of the standard 747 flap system was not needed, I believe because the max gross weight is less than that for a -100 or -200. Eric Schott From kls Wed Feb 7 14:42:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Feb 96 14:42:36 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California A second 757 crash occurred late last night. The following details are pieced together from various sources. I've tried to corroborate as much as possible without filtering the information down to nothing, and to use what appear to be official sources, but the investigation of any crash can take years to produce an official crash report. The charter flight, Alas de Transporte Internacional flight 301, which was operating at least in part for Hamburg-based Oeger Tours, departed Puerto Plata International Airport, on the north coast of the Dominican Republic, in light rain at 1143p EST on Tuesday for a flight to Berlin. It crashed into shark-infested waters less then ten minutes later, about 12 miles northeast of the airport. One report from Germany claims the plane was hit by lightening in very bad weather conditions at about 7,000 ft. and that both engines were "destroyed" by the lightening. This doesn't seem consistent with the report of just "light rain" and one wonders how so much could be known when the flight recorders have yet to be recovered and there have not been any reports of emergency communications from the plane. According to Dominican officials, the plane carried 176 passengers (88 going to Berlin and the other 88 continuing (backtracking?!) to Frankfurt) plus a crew of 13 (11 Turkish and 2 Dominicans). (Some reports claimed 177 pax and 12 crew; perhaps one crew member was deadheading.) The officials said they doubted any of the 189 people survived. Officials of the U.S. Coast Guard in Miami reported empty life rafts and life jackets amongst a two-mile stretch of wreckage. Sharks were observed circling some of the wreckage. The length of the wreckage suggests that the plane hit fairly "flat" and may have been trying to ditch, while the life rafts could indicate that some people tried to escape. The aircraft, registration TC-GEN, was owned by Birgenair, based in Istanbul. It was a 757-225, equipped with Rolls-Royce RB.211-535E4 engines. It was the 31st 757 built (SN 22206) and was originally delivered to Eastern Airlines in February, 1985. Boeing said that as of November, it had logged approximately 29,000 hours of service. The aircraft was leased to Dominican charter operator Alas de Trans- porte Internacional (also reported as Alas Nacionales or Dominican Alas). Oeger Tours, based in Hamburg, said it had chartered half of the seats on the plane. Several reports claim Oeger chartered its share of the flight at the last minute, after a 767 that it had originally chartered was grounded due to mechanical troubles. (One report says that flight actually departed but returned to Puerto Plata after a few minutes. It's hard to see any relevance to this unless there turns out to have been some miscalculation due to a last-minute doubling of load.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From news Tue Feb 6 22:51:03 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.eas.asu.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 6 Feb 1996 20:19:00 GMT Organization: University of Manchester Sender: hrose@rocza.kei.com Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <4f8d3k$i2c@kragar.kei.com> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4e3okj$v8l@alpha.ftech.net> <4eek9r$afo@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: <-snip-> >Fokker was never part of Airbus. DB is only part of Airbus through the >DASA subsidiary. <-snip-> >RNA Fokker was never a full member of the Airbus Industrie consortium, but it was an "associate member", as is a consortium of Belgian companies (SABCA and Sonaca) which also produce components for Airbus Industrie. -- Alain Deckers Tel: +44 (0)161 275 5943 (direct) PREST Fax: +44(0)161 275 5943 University of Manchester Email: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://www.man.ac.uk/Economics/PREST/ From news Wed Feb 7 00:38:51 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!hookup!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: g.stoel@lr.tudelft.nl (geoffrey stoel) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 6 Feb 1996 22:31:53 GMT Organization: Delft University of Technology Sender: hrose@rocza.kei.com Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <4f8ksp$i2c@kragar.kei.com> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: >I have mixed feelings about this proposed rescue. On the one hand, it >keeps alive a manufacturer that should, in economic grounds, be dead. >This is not good. I do not know if you guys know, but the Dutch government has lent Fokker approx. $210.000.000. So they can go on producing planes for the next four weeks. >The best thing, however, would be for Fokker to die and for the Koreans >and the Chinese to stop this nonsense about building the AE100. I don't think so. Here in Holland Fokker is one of the most High-Techiest industries. With this industry gone, I doubt if we ever get it back. >So far as I can tell, there is only one company regularly making a profit >making airliners, and that is Boeing. It makes no sense, no sense at all, >that others want to join this party. It seems entirely a matter of >national virility. Ah well, maybe 50 years from now, when we're still >flying 777s, the whole thing will seem less glamorous. Little note on that: Boeing could have been bankrupted if the 747 wouldn't have been a great succes. Another note: Boeing has bought patents on bonding from Fokker. (the F-27 has adhesive bonding techniques) CU later, Geoffrey Stoel From news Wed Feb 7 01:27:29 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Subject: Add MD-90 to thrust/weight ratio table? Date: 6 Feb 1996 16:28:47 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4f8rnv$lf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> I flew a Delta MD-90 yesterday and was impressed by its vigorous ascent. A while ago someone made a table of thrust/weight ratios for various airliners showing the 757 ended on top (apart from the Concorde that is, which is in a special category!). I was wondering if that person (Andrew Chuang? Karl Swartz?) could add the MD-90 to the table to see where it stacks up. In some ways it reminded me of the 757, being long and thin with big high-bypass engines. RNA From news Wed Feb 7 04:21:16 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: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 6 Feb 1996 19:51:08 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4f97jc$2po@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <4f8ksp$i2c@kragar.kei.com> In article <4f8ksp$i2c@kragar.kei.com>, geoffrey stoel wrote: >>The best thing, however, would be for Fokker to die and for the Koreans >>and the Chinese to stop this nonsense about building the AE100. >I don't think so. Here in Holland Fokker is one of the most >High-Techiest industries. With this industry gone, I doubt if we ever >get it back. Fokker also does (apparently profitable) things in the military sphere. These parts are likely to continue to operate, so it's not a total loss. >>So far as I can tell, there is only one company regularly making a profit >>making airliners, and that is Boeing. It makes no sense, no sense at all, >>that others want to join this party. It seems entirely a matter of >>national virility. Ah well, maybe 50 years from now, when we're still >>flying 777s, the whole thing will seem less glamorous. > >Little note on that: Boeing could have been bankrupted if the 747 >wouldn't have been a great succes. Indeed. What's the connection? RNA From news Wed Feb 7 20:07:43 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: Dominican charter carrier loses 757 Date: 7 Feb 1996 10:24:46 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4faqpe$6r2@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> A 757 belonging to Alas Nacionales, a charter carrier from the Dominican republic, has crashed into shark-infested waters off of Puerto Plata last night in "light rainshowers". There were 189 passengers on board, mainly German, and there are not expected to be any survivors. Recovery efforts are underway by the US coast-guard, but diving efforts are being hampered by large numbers of sharks. The bodies of some victims have already been partially eaten. This is only the second 757 crash, but unfortunately also the second within two months. The aircraft was only at 5000 feet and 12 miles downrange from Puerto Plata when it unaccountably descended off of radar screens as it was being transferred to Puerto Rico air traffic control. The aircraft was described as being en-route to Frankfurt "via Berlin Schoenefeld", which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. *** I wonder how long this will take to sort out. 5000 feet is low, barely off the ground for a 757, given its tremendous climb rate. The black box has gone into the drink, it sounds, but that hasn't stopped past recovery efforts. Does anyone know if Alas Nacionales was leasing the aircraft, if so from whom? P&W vs RR engines, that sort of thing? RNA From news Wed Feb 7 21:03:26 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: Re: Dominican charter carrier loses 757 Date: 7 Feb 1996 11:37:44 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4fav28$7dv@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <4faqpe$6r2@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> More on the Alas crash: the 757 was leased from Birgen Air of Turkey. Reports from Germany say that it was uninsured and had not filed a flight plan to Frankfurt. The aircraft is now said to have been at 7000 ft and had just executed a turn consistent with returning to the airport. The 757 was a last-minute substitution for a 767, because either the 767 went out of service or because there were few enough people to fit on a 757, take your pick (accounts vary). ************* This begins to sound like a shoestring operation gone horribly wrong. It will be interesting to learn where the plane was maintained, who trained the pilots and so forth. RNA From news Wed Feb 7 21:45:53 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: Re: Dominican charter carrier loses 757 Date: 7 Feb 1996 12:22:42 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4fb1mi$7o9@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <4faqpe$6r2@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <4fav28$7dv@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> The aircraft in question was number 35 off the Boeing line, delivered in 1985 to Eastern Airlines. It thus has Rolls Royce engines. The 757 has been in service since 1983. **** Would Alas need ETOPS certification to fly that thing across the Atlantic to Germany? It's hard to imagine it had that certification. RNA From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:01 Further to the message from Karl (07 Feb 96 14:42:36) detailing the current "facts" (the quotes should not be taken to imply any criticism of Karl's fairly comprehensive summary, but to emphasise the dubious nature of some of the sources), a few points from the coverage in this morning's Guardian are worth noting:- 1. The flight was described as "illegal". The airline (given as "Alas Nacionales") that chartered the aircraft had not contacted the German authorities to obtain landing permission. (Source: Volker Mattern, German transport ministry.) 2. The B757 that crashed had no licence to fly to Berlin and Frankfurt. The B767 that it replaced on the flight did have permission to fly to Germany. (Source: German transport ministry spokesman.) 3. In 1993, Alas Nacionales was one of 14 Carribean air carriers shut down by the FAA for failure to comply with safety standards. 4. The tour operator was a Herr Vural Oeger of Oeger Tours, based in Hamburg. Herr Oeger was the source of the statements about the 767's "mechanical troubles" and the 757's lightning strike. 5. Herr Oeger's statement that the 767 originally scheduled for the flight had to be grounded before take-off due to a malfunction of the hydraulic system was contradicted by a spokeswoman for Berlin Schoenefeld airport (Rosamarie Meischner), who said that the planes were switched because the flight was underbooked for a 767 (capacity 300 compared to the 757's capacity of 224). The Guardian also gives the numbers as 176 passengers and 13 crew. 6. Herr Oeger claimed that no landing permission was needed when a plane was substituted at short notice. This raises the question (not addressed in the Guardian report) of whether Alas Nacionales had previously sought landing permission for the flight as originally planned with a 767. 7. Herr Oeger's statement that the 757 appeared to have been struck by lightning was contradicted by German officials (not identified) who said that a thick film of oil miles wide at the crash site meant there was neither a fire nor an explosion. 8. The pilot was Turkish. Early reports said that he had attempted to turn back shortly after take-off from Puerto Plata airport. The time that the plane disappeared from radar screens was given as three minutes after take-off, and the location as "12 miles from the coast" and "13 miles north of Puerto Plata". 9. The search was suspended in "heavy rain" last night and is expected to resume today. No information about the weather on take-off is given. 106 bodies have so far been recovered by the US coastguard and Dominican military rescue teams. Wreckage stretched over two miles and included bodies, seat cushions, empty life rafts and life jackets. "This is the ocean and this is the sharks' home," said a Dominican air force major. 10. The accompanying map shows that the crash occurred just outside the Bermuda triangle. Draw your own conclusions about the integrity of the tour operator and carrier. (Perhaps Herr Oeger had been on the 'phone to a well-informed shark! :-) Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) 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 Feb 96 03:21:02 In article sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes: >The WSJ for 1/8 had a front page article about the crash, specifically >addressing this point. Most of what they say confirms other reports, then >they claim >- they only needed 200 ft for safety >- with spoilers retracted, they would probably have made this What's remarkable is that the story occurred so soon after the crash that there couldn't possibly have been an adequate topographical or flight path analysis. >- Airbus jets (A320, A330, A340) have computer-controlled protection > that would have retracted the spoilers when near stalling speed (i.e., > when other planes have the stick shaker activated - and AA965 has the > stick shaker going in the last few seconds). Saying that speed brake position was a major contributing factor is baseless. We still don't know that to be the case. The airplane flew into the side of a mountain. It wasn't where it was supposed to be: that is the proximal cause of the crash, not whether a whiz-bang protection might have worked on an airplane which wouldn't even have been flying that route to begin with, due to performance limitations. >The main point the reporter wanted to make that an Airbus jet might not >have crashed, and he went on about how Airbus elects to let the computer fly >the plane, while Boeing prefers the pilot. I don't remember--did they mention how many of these computer-controlled Airbus aircraft have bit the dust, vs. how many 757s have bit the dust? (5 in five years and 1 in 13 years, respectively). >I don't want to start another battle in the Airbus vs. Boeing wars, but I >found this viewpoint, emanating as it did from the mouthpiece of American >capitalism, noteworthy. The WSJ article was thoroughly debunked in rec.travel.air. Most of its claims are groundless, and obviously stem from the same sort of safety analyses which Airbus uses to justify the presence of protective systems to begin with. Just my ever so humble opinion. -- 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 Feb 8 03:21:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:02 In article , Jean-Francois Bosc wrote: >I've read comments about European subsidies a few times recently. >All the same kind (unacceptable government interference with >free economy). > >However, living in a country where opinions are biased the other >way, I've heard and read many times that the only difference >between government subsidies in Europe and the US is that >European ones are called subsidies ... > >Any comment ? Then you had better say what they are called in the US. We have to be able to call it something, if it exists. As an aside, there are subsidies in parts of the US industrial system, or at least special tax treatments. A figure I have heard is about $70 billion/year. Add to this agricultural subsidies (which are well-known, and large, but still only half the level of the European CAP). None of these, to my knowledge, are specific to the commercial aviation market. If you sin yourself it is very nice to be able to say that everyone else does it too. Still, it would be nice if those who say that other do it too would identify exactly how, so that there was more to debate than a vague accusation. RNA From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... 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 Feb 96 03:21:04 In article bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) writes: >I've read comments about European subsidies a few times recently. >All the same kind (unacceptable government interference with >free economy). > >However, living in a country where opinions are biased the other >way, I've heard and read many times that the only difference >between government subsidies in Europe and the US is that >European ones are called subsidies ... The traditional argument is that Boeing et al receive significant subsidies through their government contracts. Boeing became a major player first through the massive defense contracts during World War II, then the B-52 and KC-135. McDonnell-Douglas has all of its transport and fighter business, etc. Thus, so the reasoning goes, if Europe is to be a credible contender, its aerospace industry must have a comparable genesis. There are a number of flaws in this argument, and in the gripe. First off, Airbus Industrie is a consortium of companies. It is not a private corporation. Many of the people complaining probably have difficulty comprehending the notion that a major industrial player can operate independently of the state, but, hey, it happens in the United States. It is not always the best thing in the world, but it certainly does happen. So saying that Airbus "gets subsidies" is missing the point: that's a basic component of the business model. No doubt it recovers material costs through unit sales, but does it show a profit, or even break even? Not even the patron governments know. It's unlikely that they're selling $200 million airplanes for $50 million, but if they sell a $75 million airplane for $60 million and Boeing sells a $75 million airplane for $75 million, certain basic competitive questions arise. Second, the early reasoning behind these subsidies was to give the European aerospace sector a credible technological jump-start against the Americans. Airbus was formed in the late 1960s, and released its first product, the A300, in the early 1970s. The A300 was directly comparable to the best the Americans were producing at the time, quality-wise. If there were any doubts, the A310 put them to rest. Airbus benefitted from a lot of international engineering talent. The problem was, nobody bought their airplanes, initially, so the subsidies continued in order to perpetuate the company. Indeed, many European aerospace publications during the 1980s are noteworthy in terms of their total apathy with regard to things Airbus. Nobody bought their stuff because nobody thought they'd be around for long. In the 1980s, the Airbus model switched from one of altruistically benefitting the European aerospace sector to one of directly competing with the Americans. Thus, practices such as performance guarantees, offering to make up for empty seats (buy the wrong airplane and they'll pick up the difference), Government-backed loans to third-world customers, etc. all set into place. A lot of pundits like to ascribe the "Business is War" philosophy to the Japanese, but they've got nothing on the Europeans. Recent pronouncements by Jean Pierson, the Airbus executive officer, blatantly state that their objective is to achieve market domination at the expense of the Americans. Third, with the Reaganauts and their intellectual descendants, it would be just *fine* if major industrial players were to bite the dust. It all fits into this bizarre global economic model in which the strongest companies survive, no matter who they are. Boeing repeatedly tried to leverage its political position to offer competitive financing to many third- world carriers. They could not, because of US government resistance, and many "Boeing" airlines became "Airbus" airlines. Boeing almost did bite the dust when they bet the company on the success on the 747. And does anyone want to bet whether the government of the late 1960s would have bailed them out? Ha! Lockheed was forced to discontinue the L-1011, and McDonnell Douglas has had problems selling the MD-11, what with all those white tails at Burbank, and has been teetering for the past couple of years. The United States government has become a little bit more pro-active in this area, first, grudgingly, during the Bush administration and much moreso during the Clinton administration. Bottom line: these companies aren't extensions of the government. They are businesses which largely make money by selling aerospace products. A major purchaser of such products is the military. However, it's important to note that the technology does not always transfer, and the major target of these allegations is Boeing's commercial division--not McDonnell Douglas, which does more military business. The government just doesn't buy a whole bunch of airliners, and the big transports are designed to carry tanks and paratroopers, not passengers and light cargo. Fifth, the "grandfather" argument doesn't really hold water. Guns are major cash-earners for all industrialized countries. The Europeans haven't exactly been sitting still since World War II. All of the members of the Airbus consortium have had a brisk military sideline: BAe's Hawk, the various Aerospatiale aerospace and missile products, etc. So this "learning curve" has been running unabated during the exact same period that the European apologists whine that the Americans were experiencing such an unfair advantage. One thing the Europeans never were very good at, though, was selling airliners. The Comet flopped. The Trident was sunk by the 727 (on the 727's own merits). The Caravelle never really sold well. What was really going on in the late 1960s was a bad case of airliner envy. So, what we've basically got at this point is a European high-tech public- works project with full government backing whose executive staff has announced that they seek to dominate the world airliner market. Balanced against that are a number of American companies which basically must rely upon their own resources. Even if one is a Eurosocialist, it doesn't take a whole lot of brains to see that this is a fundamentally unfair proposition. But hey, life isn't always fair. One is heartened by the intermittent announcements by some Airbus officers that they finally want to "privatize" the consortium (which often is backed up by government ministers, since they undoubtedly have better things to do than sink funds down this black hole). So far, all of that has been talk. -- 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 Feb 8 03:21:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tnguyen@imag.fr (Nguyen Gia Toan) Subject: Re: Subsidies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INRIA Rhone-Alpes (France) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:04 To add another argument to the subsidies debate, why not talk about the exchange parity between US and European currencies ? Economists agree worldwide that the US dollar is not on par with its real value in terms of trade markets and economic value on international financial markets. This looks very much like (not so) hidden subsidies doesn't it ? From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Carley Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:04 bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) writes: >However, living in a country where opinions are biased the other >way, I've heard and read many times that the only difference >between government subsidies in Europe and the US is that >European ones are called subsidies ... >Any comment ? Think of it this way---would there have been a B707 without heavy subsidy from the USAF? Does anyone know roughly what the value of hidden subsidies to the US aero industry from military development contracts and NASA work is? Just wondering. -- "You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John) Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie Home page From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) Subject: Re: 777 drogue chute on tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Idaho State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:04 This was probably a "spin chute". These are commonly used during flight test to aid in the recovery from an accidental spin. Lest you think this is unlikely, during one early test of the 777's stall characteristics it rolled 110 degrees (ie, past vertical) prior to recovery. This was fixed by a software adjustment to the aileron control laws. Jim Wolper CFII Department of Mathematics Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209-8085 USA From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 777 drogue chute on tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:05 In article , iandhhs@cadvision.com wrote: > In viewing a recent re-run of '21st Century Jet' which highlighted > the 777 I noted that during ground trials and the initial flight > the following. At the top of the fin there was what appeared to be > a small parachute drogue on a line some 10 to 20 metrs in length. > Difficult to determine the exact size as scale on the 777 is hard > to establish. That is not a drogue chute, but a stabilizing cone for the trailing static pressure line. In flight, the line is let out to provide a static pressure source far from from the influence of turbulent air around the airplane. There was also a trailing wire that extended from the tailcone on WA001. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: acphilli@uoguelph.ca (Adrian C Phillips) Subject: Media biasness reporting crashes? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:05 Is it my imagination or have I really noticed the following trend. When the media reports the crash of a foriegn built aircraft such as the recent crash in Zaire the report is "the crash of a Russian built Antonov aircraft" with special note of the country of manufacture. On the other hand, crashes of North American built aircraft state " the crash of a Boeing 757" with no mention of the country of manufacture. If this is really a trend, what are the possible reasons for it and can it really be justified??? -- Adrian Phillips School of Rural Planning and Development University of Guelph Canada acphilli@uoguelph.ca From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: orourke@starlink.com (Ken O'Rourke) Subject: Re: 727 rudder References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Star Link Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:05 hazlett@moon.pr.erau.edu (Kathryn Hazlett) wrote: >Why does the 727 have a two piece rudder? >What are the advantages or disadvantages of a two piece rudder? Until the 727 experts weigh in, here is my two cents on why in general it is desirable to have multiple sections of a control surface; I believe that having multiple surfaces allows you to have independent actuators on each so that in the event of a failure you maintain sufficient control authority to land. Takeoff with potential engine outs and crosswind landings require the greater rudder authority and hopefully a pilot could find a suitable airport to bring it in. Also, perhaps it is desirable to lock out one of the surfaces in cruise to minimize the exposure to actuator failures resulting in a full authority hardover. From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.M.Haynes@aeromech.salford.ac.uk (Duncan Haynes) Subject: Re: 727 rudder References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Salford Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:05 In article , hazlett@moon.pr.erau.edu (Kathryn Hazlett) wrote: >Why does the 727 have a two piece rudder? > >What are the advantages or disadvantages of a two piece rudder? If one half fails, then the other half can still do the business. From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aptech@aptech.seanet.com (Brian Sequira) Subject: Re: 727 rudder References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: seanet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:06 Kathryn, The purpose of a two system (dual) rudder is the same as the ailerons (inboard and outboard). During slow speeds (takeoffs and landings), both systems (upper/lower rudders) work together for effective control, while at higher speeds (cruise) the need for large control surface movement is lessened. Brian hazlett@moon.pr.erau.edu (Kathryn Hazlett) wrote: >Why does the 727 have a two piece rudder? >What are the advantages or disadvantages of a two piece rudder? From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust reverse useage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:06 In article , slacker@arlut.utexas.edu says... >Speculation: the high-placement of the #2 engine on the DC-10 means that >reversing it tends to lift the nose-wheel? > The cascade boxes on the tail engine reverser are usually selected to obtain a net vertically upward load, and a corresponding nose down pitching moment. This means that the lower cascade boxes have less forward turning (usually about 15 degrees) and are termed as flow spoilers. The cascade boxex on the upper half of the reverser turn the flow forward by as much as 45 degrees. >727s landing with ONLY #2 reversed. In addition, airlines that power-back their >727's from the gate (American and TWA, for example) do so using only #2 in >reverse thrust. (since the reverse blast from #2 is directed to the sides >rather than upward and downward, it doesn't kick up debris from the ramp). > Besides FOD, reingestion of the reverser plume into the engine, and crossingestion between engines is an issue. Typically, self-reingestion on wing mounted cascade reversers will occur at less than 30 knots aircraft speed. These concerns do not apply to the tail engine because of the height. From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust reverse useage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Direct Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:06 Steve Lacker wrote: > > randl@direct.ca wrote: > > Why do some airlines consistently use reverse thrust > >on all three engines, yet in contrast, others only use #1 and #3 reverse? > > According to the DC-10-30 F.C.O.M. Vol.III p.17-10-03 (This should be in my instantly retrivable data file, but it isn't) to quote para. 3 of the description of the T/R system, "An in-flight reverse thrust interlock prevents deployment of the thrust reversers unless the landing gear is down. After landing gear is down, initial reverser lever movement un- locks the respective system, starts reverser deployment which is indicated by the REVERSER UNLOCK (easily visible) and REVERSER VALVE OPEN lights (situated where no-one is looking) coming on. The reverser system, when fully deployed, will release the reverser lever interlocks for engine 1 and 3. (Here is the important part) For engine 2 reverser lever interlock release, full reverser deployment and ***NOSE GEAR*** ground shift (gear squat switch) mechanism actuation is required. ie: You can pull 1 & 3 into reverse as soon as the mains are on but you have to wait for the nosewheel to touch to get #2 out. I work for a company that has used both methods over time. You do not get a noticeable pitch up from using #2 in reverse however the Douglas manuals state that below 60 kt. the thrust vector from #2 in reverse is actually forward!! I believe that our S.O.P's consider T/R usage a "technique item" but most, if not all of our crews pull 1&3 out and into reverse then deploy #2 later(usually 4-5 seconds to get nosewheel on the runway. DC-10, Voodoo Engineering, Fly-by-mouth but built like a brick shithouse. BTW, S.O.P. on the 10 is folklore and innuendo. Peter N. Gurell, S/O, F/E DC-10-30 Canadi Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:06 When operating a commuter style operation (many short hops in a day), how often is a plane refueled ? For instance, if you run a 737 size aircraft, will it be refueled at every station it lands, every second one ? (Assuming 1 hour hops). Does refueling severely reduce plane turn around time or can it be safely done while other operations are going on (luggage loading/unloading, catering load/unload, passenger load/unload) ? Does refueling cost more in manpower/service costs than carrying a full load of fuel that saves you a refueling at an intermediate stop ? (eg: Depart A with enough fuel for A->B and B->C, so you don't have to refuel at B, but must carry the B->C fuel on the A->B leg.) From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gswetnam@mitre.org (George Swetnam) Subject: AIAA Workshop on Free Flight and ATM Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MITRE Corp. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:07 AIAA AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE WORKSHOP "ATM in the 21st Century: Where Does Free Flight fit in?" Wednesday, March 6, 1996 Loew's L'Enfant Plaza Hotel L'Enfant Promenade, SW Washington, DC Registration, 8:00 AM, Workshop Begins 9:00 AM Lunch provided, included in $10 registration fee. The Air Transportation Systems Technical Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronauts will host a 1-day workshop on the interaction between Air Traffic Management and the new Free Flight concept for Air Traffic Control. Speakers from the airlines, FAA, NATCA, NASA, and other interested organizations will trade ideas on how the future ATM system should be shaped. For more information, please contact Emily Davies at (703) 264-7553, e-mail emilyd@aiaa.org SPEAKERS AND TOPICS Bill Cotton, United Air Lines: "AIAA's Contribution to Free Flight" The Technical Committee needs to consider its work program in light of the future Air Traffic Management environment in which free flight is the operating concept. AIAA needs to provide a unique contribution to this major developmental effort to be relevant during the next ten years. Lane Speck, FAA: "Free Flight" What is it? Where is it? Where is it going? How is it going to get there? What's in it for you? How you can help. John Pyburn, MITRE/CAASD, "The National Route Program Feasibility Analysis: First Steps Toward Free-flight" Over the past several years, an initiative known as the National Route Program has allowed greater flexibility for airspace users to select their route of flight. At intervals over this time, the criteria for eligibility for this style of flying have become less and less restrictive. Using computer modeling, we have analyzed the feasibility of this program for the FAA. It should be seen as the first steps towards free-flight. John Scardina, Integrated Product Team Lead, FAA and Frank Willingham, Program Manager, MITRE/CAASD: "Maximizing Delivery of User Benefits Through Integrated ATM Functionality." This talk describes an evolutionary approach to achieve maximum flexibility and efficiency for airspace users through fully integrated Air Traffic Management system functionality. The approach provides for early benefits via quick fielding of initial increments which require only minimal integration. Then, achieving higher levels of integration with subsequent deployments via inter-domain, functional integration packages of decision support services. This approach assumes deployment of the physical infrastructure as currently planned for the en route, terminal and tower domains. Rusty Bell, System Manager: Flight Operations Technology, Delta Air Lines "Title TBD" Delta Air Lines Experience with a Flight Planning System to Support Greater Flexibility Steve Brown, AOPA/RTCA Task Force 3: "General Aviation's Priorities for Free Flight" Message TBD Karl Grundmann, National Air Traffic Controllers' Association: "NATCA's Perspective on Free Flight" What the union sees in looking at Free Flight: advantages, disadvantages, trouble spots, issues, problems, and ways to resolve them. John Ball, Lockheed Martin: "Associate Technology and Its Support of the Free Flight Concept." Associate technology is a military based technology developed under several ARPA contracts to provide decision and information support to pilots. Lockheed Martin sees this technology as critical to the implementation of the Free Flight concept as it has been envisioned. This technology is part of a concept being developed under the NASA AATT contract. The only difference is that Lockheed Martin is looking at what would be required for an all airborne-based conflict resolution and avoidance system. Jim Dieudonne, MITRE/CAASD: " Early Free Flight Evaluations - - Some Ups, Some Downs" This discussion will center around early observations of the "Free Flight Concept" based on analysis of current "unstructured route operations", simulations and laboratory "experiments", and field evaluations at the FAA's Kansas City Enroute Control Center. Some of these "early lessons learned" should help us focus future activities. From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jsteele@AZStarNet.com (Jerry Steele) Subject: 737 Perturbations Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Arizona Daily Star - AZSTARNET Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:07 A recent announcement in the newswires by the Seattle times states that some U.S. airlines have begun to voluntarily change the way they fly Boeing 737s duringlanding approaches to give pilots a better chance of countering potential uncontrolled movements of the aircraft's rudder as well as training for flying 737's inverted. The flight change involves pilots flying 737s slightly faster as the aircraft descends toward landing. That would better ailerons, to offset any severe, inadvertent rudder swings. The 737 has fewer safeguards against inadvertent rudder hard-overs than do other models. The 737 has one large rudder controlled by a single power control unit, or PCU. The Boeing 727 and 747 models use a split rudder in which two rudder sections are controlled separately by two PCUs. Thus, a rogue command issued by one unit can be offset by the proper operation of the other unit. Boeing 757s, 767s and 777s use a single rudder controlled by multiple PCUs, another way to minimize danger caused by a rogue signal issued by one of the control units. McDonnell Douglas jetliners use a device called a "limiter" that physically prevents the rudder from extreme deflections in flight. Concern about the potential for a rudder swing at low altitudes, when there may be only a few seconds to make the proper recovery maneuvers, led the pilots' group to call for special AEROBATIC training for 737pilots. Such training would complement the approach speed change some airlines are now embracing, thegroup contends. From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Sino-Korean AE100 (Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY?) References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:08 In article <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, Robert Ashcroft wrote: >I have mixed feelings about this proposed rescue. On the one hand, it >keeps alive a manufacturer that should, in economic grounds, be dead. >This is not good. > >On the other hand, Samsung and the Chinese seem determined to build the >AE100, despite the fact that it has a snowball's chance in hell of being >an economic success and will simply end up adding more capacity to an >industry that already has far too much. To the extent that the Fokker >purchase replaces an all-new AE100 (that is to say, the F100 becomes >the AE100), this is probably a good thing. I don't think the Chinese nor the Koreans will allow that to happen. Furthermore, the F100 is a relatively old design. At one time, even Fokker and DASA were talking about a new model, the FX, to replace the F100. > >The best thing, however, would be for Fokker to die and for the Koreans >and the Chinese to stop this nonsense about building the AE100. I agree with you that the market will be overcrowded with the AE100. However, I don't think it's such a bad idea to transfer the low-end market to low-cost countries. China will have a tremendous domestic market that can sustain the AE100 production. The Europeans as well as Boeing and McDonnell Douglas all realize the potential, and they are fiercely competing to be the Western partner for the Sino-Korean project. Unfortunately, the biggest problem the AE100 is facing now is that the Chinese and the Koreans don't seem to be able to agree on anything. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bob_wohlsen@qm.sri.com (wohlsen) Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: sri international Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:08 In article <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: > I have mixed feelings about this proposed rescue. On the one hand, it > keeps alive a manufacturer that should, in economic grounds, be dead. > This is not good. > > On the other hand, Samsung and the Chinese seem determined to build the > AE100, despite the fact that it has a snowball's chance in hell of being > an economic success and will simply end up adding more capacity to an > industry that already has far too much. To the extent that the Fokker > purchase replaces an all-new AE100 (that is to say, the F100 becomes > the AE100), this is probably a good thing. > > The best thing, however, would be for Fokker to die and for the Koreans > and the Chinese to stop this nonsense about building the AE100. > Much of the F100 is built by others, some of whom are risk-sharing partners whose contracts may have to be honored even if the program is taken over by another. DASA builds the center and aft fuselage; Shorts builds the wings; Northrup-Grumman builds the nacelles and thrust reversers; Menasco of Canada builds the landing gear; and IPTN builds various other pieces. In the short-term it may be in Samsung's best interests to honor these contracts in order to keep production rolling. Given that, won't Samsung be stuck with the same costs that destroyed Fokker. Are there any similar buyouts/takeovers that set a precedent in this area? Bob Wohlsen bob_wohlsen@qm.sri.com From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rat1@crux3.cit.cornell.edu (Ryan A. Tam) Subject: 777 engine imbalance (Business Week, 1/29) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cornell University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:08 The January 29th issue of Business Week has a pretty long article on how the FAA certified the 777 without properly looking into the issue of individual blade failures in the new engines. If I recall correctly, the article says that if one or more of the blades fails during flight, it would cause severe vibrations throughout the aircraft. This would make instrument displays in the cockpit unreadable, and potentially severely injure the passengers. Are thse allegations as serious as the magazine make them out to be? It talks about a 1993 incident where a Cathay Pacific 747 almost made a water ditching after such a blade separation... -Ryan Tam [rat1@cornell.edu] From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 777 engine imbalance (Business Week, 1/29) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:08 >The January 29th issue of Business Week has a pretty long article >on how the FAA certified the 777 without properly looking into >the issue of individual blade failures in the new engines. Interesting article, though I couldn't decide if I thought it had some merit or if it was mostly journalistic sensationalism. I'd love to see some more informed opinions on the article. >Are thse allegations as serious as the magazine make them out to be? >It talks about a 1993 incident where a Cathay Pacific 747 almost made >a water ditching after such a blade separation... I read this and scoffed, as I did when they talked about instruments on the 777 being unreadable due to engine vibrations. Sounds pretty absurd, right? Just shut the engine down! Then, nearly at the end of the article, they mentioned windmilling engines and it dawned on me that just shutting the engine down isn't good enough, since it will still windmill and thus still produce a pretty decent vibration if it's massively out of balance. It still seems like they ought to be able to simulate the situation reasonable well, since they have vibration data from test-stand runs of the engines with intentionally failed blades. This information could be used to appropriately shake an airframe on the group, or so it would seem. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this point in the same way that the windmilling comment finally opened my eyes. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) Subject: Boeing 767 incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:09 I just heard on the radio an interesting story concerning a Canadian airlines Boeing 767. Apparently last night (Jan. 29), at Pearson International airport in Toronto, Canada, the Boeing 767 was parked at its landing gate, and suddenly a strong wind gust hit the plane such that the plane rotated some 90 degrees, and nearly hit a British Airways 747. The report stated that the wind lifted the plane by its wings, causing it to turn. In cases when there is lots of gusty wind outside, are there any tie-down or other proceedures for making sure that these larger 'parked' planes don't accidentally move around? Just curious.... Eric Thomas Ottawa, Ont. Canada From kls Thu Feb 8 03:21:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Brad Gillies Subject: Re: Boeing 777 advances References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 96 03:21:09 Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > I am sure the experts will, as usual, find a way to refute what I am > saying, but I beleive that the DC-9s belonging to NW and which were > rebuilt at the AC facility now have composite floors as well. A friend of > mine who worked on that line told me that the panels used were honeycomb. > (whether metal or composite, I am not sure). Then again, DC-9s are not > Boeing. Actually I have not been on a boeing that doesn't have composite floors. This includes the 767,757,747,737,727 and now i guess the 777. Brad Gillies AME, A&P, PPASEL From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:49 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "Karl Swartz" writes: > (One report says that flight > actually departed but returned to Puerto Plata after a few minutes. > It's hard to see any relevance to this unless there turns out to have > been some miscalculation due to a last-minute doubling of load.) Let's say they turned back for a minor reason like a warning light... There have been news references to possible lightning strikes. Normally one would discount this but what's the SOP on fuel dumping in areas which have `humidity lightning'? -- Niels From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: 1996 Aircraft Order Update Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:50 I forgot to cross-post the 1995 final list to misc.transport.air-industry. Send me an email, if you want the list. BWIA's A340 order probably should be in last year's list. There is no model specification for GE Captial Aviation Services' order of 82 B737-600/700/800s, so I put it in the -700 column. ============================================================================= *** 1996 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Jan 28, 96) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N|GECAS | | 20 82 5G | | N|UA | | 2P | | N|MH | | 10P 15R | | N|PL | | 1G | | N|BW | 2| | | N|GATX | 9U | | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 0 0 0 9 0 2| 20 0 82 0 13 0 0 20 0| 0 0| | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 11 ) | B O E I N G ( 135 ) |MD( 0)| Announced Letters of Intent |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N|PL | 12C 8G 4| 8G | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 0 0 12 9 8 6| 20 0 82 0 21 0 0 20 0| 0 0| | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 35 ) | B O E I N G ( 143 ) |MD( 0)| 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/R-R, 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). 4 Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@cris.com) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. 5 airline code: BW - BWIA MH - Malaysia (MAS) PL - Philippine UA - United -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:50 Last year, I came across an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review on the Airbus/Boeing competition. It was reported in the article that Boeing claimed the B777 would shave off as much as an hour off A340's flying time on long-haul trip. A similar claim was made by one of the netters from Boeing in sci.aeronautics.airliners but was later disputed by a Cathay Pacific pilot. Today, there is an article saying that Airbus is threatening to sue Boeing if Boeing does not stop using this false information (that the A330/340 can only cruise at 0.78 Mach). Airbus says that some early A340 operators used the lower speed to increase either payload or range. However, this sounds to me that the A330/340 must have significant performance shortfalls. I strongly suspect this is the reason why Airbus is at least six months behind in the A340-300E development. I read in another news release from the Asian Aerospace Air Show that Airbus claims to have 43% of the A330/340/B777-200/MD11 market vs. Boeing's 30%. Note, Airbus left out the B777-300 because it's a significantly larger aircraft. However, Airbus included the A340-200 which is probably closer to the B767 size than to the MD-11 size. Nonetheless, even without the A340-200, by my rough estimate, Airbus still leads Boeing by about 50 units or 7 percentage points (40% vs 33%). One thing Airbus failed to point out is that the B777 program was launched three years after the A330/340, and the sales of the A330/340 have been flat for the past few years. Furthermore, I think it's very likely that the B777 will overtake the A330/340 by the end of the year. Airbus is confident to officially launch the A340-8000 soon from three potential customers, including Cathay Pacific. Airbus says that airlines are not comfortable with the idea of flying twin-engine planes over water for 16 or 18 hours. I find it ironic that the manufacturer (Airbus) which pioneered the widebody twins is pushing a four-engine plane, while the manufacturer which was once reluctant to build widebody twins (Boeing) is a firm believer of twins, now. Also, since the Air Show is in Singapore, Airbus makes a special marketing pitch to Singapore Airlines in the press. Airbus says that it will offer the A330-200 Lite for SIA's needs of a smaller aircraft for regional services. (Boeing has talked about a B777-100X Lite, but I think the A330-200 Lite will have significant operating cost advantage over the "baby" B777.) The battle is really heating up, Airbus has the A330-200, A340-8000, A340-400X, and the A3XX on the drawing board, while Boeing has the B777-100X, B747-500X, B747-600X, B757-200X (ER), B757-300X, and B767-400X. Personally, I'm most interested in the A340-8000/B777-100X development. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: piersdorff.michael@ic.gc.ca Subject: Re: 777 engine imbalance (Business Week, 1/29) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Communications Research Centre Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:51 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >I read this and scoffed, as I did when they talked about instruments >on the 777 being unreadable due to engine vibrations. Sounds pretty >absurd, right? Just shut the engine down! >Then, nearly at the end of the article, they mentioned windmilling >engines and it dawned on me that just shutting the engine down isn't >good enough, since it will still windmill and thus still produce a >pretty decent vibration if it's massively out of balance. One of the major issues in trying to read instruments in a vibrating environment has to do with the elasticity of the human spine. I recall reading somewhere that the spine has a natural frequency at about three cycles per second. At this point, the head would be bouncing up and down so violently that focussing on anything would be impossible. So even a glass cockpit, which doesn't suffer the problems of vibrating needles making them unreliable indicators, can become useless in certain circumstances. The engine certification tests must show containment in the engine casing of rotor blade and disk fragments in the event of worst-case failure, and the recent PBS series on the B777 clearly showed some of these tests. The effect on the airframe and its inhabitants of continued vibration from a windmilling engine with a blade failure may be something else again. From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 777 engine imbalance (Business Week, 1/29) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:51 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >It still seems like they ought to be able to simulate the situation >reasonable well, since they have vibration data from test-stand runs >of the engines with intentionally failed blades. This information >could be used to appropriately shake an airframe on the group, or so >it would seem. Last summer, the GE90 failed a blade-out and bird-strike tests resulted in the delay of the certification of the B777/GE90 combination. British Airways had to wait an extra two months to get its first B777 (but received a hefty sum of penalty payment from Boeing and GE). According to AvLeak, in one of the failed tests (I think it was the bird-strike test), due to the impact, some platforms (spacers between the fan blades) cut into trailing fan blades. Two or three fan blades were severed and resulted in unacceptable engine imbalance. GE later fixed the problem by redesigning the platform and passed the tests late last summer. I don't know the exact FAA rules. However, from the GE incidence, I would think that engine imbalance is a critical criteron in the blade-out and bird-strike tests. Thus, I don't quite follow why Business Week made an issue out of this. Since these tests require the engine to maintain certain level of thrust, the vibration that one would experience in windmilling cannot be any worse than that at 80 or 90% speed. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 777 engine imbalance (Business Week, 1/29) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:51 >However, from the GE incidence, I would think that engine imbalance >is a critical criteron in the blade-out and bird-strike tests. My take on GE's problems was that the delay in certification was because the bird-strike test took out three blades instead of just one as required by the regulations. Imbalance wasn't directly a concern, though undoubtedly the "one blade" rule is based in part on concerns over balance. >Thus, I don't quite follow why Business Week made an issue out of >this. Since these tests require the engine to maintain certain level >of thrust, the vibration that one would experience in windmilling >cannot be any worse than that at 80 or 90% speed. I think the point was that while the engine may well continue to produce substantial thrust, there's apparently nothing that says the plane must still be flyable. The engine could be producing thrust all the way into a crater caused by severe vibration rendering the aircraft unflyable yet the regs apparently would still be met. I haven't looked at the appropriate regulations myself, so this may be entirely off base. Perhaps someone would care to cite specific sections of the FARs that are relevant to this discussion. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wjcandee@netcom.com (Bill Candee) Subject: Re: Media biasness reporting crashes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:52 acphilli@uoguelph.ca (Adrian C Phillips) wrote: >Is it my imagination or have I really noticed the following trend. When >the media reports the crash of a foriegn built aircraft such as the >recent crash in Zaire the report is "the crash of a Russian built Antonov >aircraft" with special note of the country of manufacture. On the other >hand, crashes of North American built aircraft state " the crash of a >Boeing 757" with no mention of the country of manufacture. >If this is really a trend, what are the possible reasons for it and can >it really be justified??? Sure. More people (everyone?) in the U.S. know who Boeing is and that it's an American company. Fewer "civilians" know what Antonov is. To say "An American-made Boeing 7X7 crashed today while being operated by a fly-by-night Eastern European bunch of yokels" is redundant. --Bill From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Media biasness reporting crashes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:52 In article , Adrian C Phillips wrote: >Is it my imagination or have I really noticed the following trend. When >the media reports the crash of a foriegn built aircraft such as the >recent crash in Zaire the report is "the crash of a Russian built Antonov >aircraft" with special note of the country of manufacture. On the other >hand, crashes of North American built aircraft state " the crash of a >Boeing 757" with no mention of the country of manufacture. > >If this is really a trend, what are the possible reasons for it and can >it really be justified??? Just a guess: because the assumption of the media you are watching/reading is that you grasp what just about everyone knows---i.e. that Boeing is American. Whereas there's probably a large fraction of people in the world who've never heard of Antonov, let alone know where it comes from. Really, it sounds like you are looking for Reds under beds, so to speak. RNA From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Media biasness reporting crashes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:52 Adrian Phillips writes (08 Feb 96 03:21:05):- > ... When the media reports the crash of a foriegn built aircraft > ... the report is "the crash of a Russian built Antonov > aircraft" with special note of the country of manufacture. On the other > hand, crashes of North American built aircraft state " the crash of a > Boeing 757" with no mention of the country of manufacture. > > If this is really a trend, what are the possible reasons for it and can > it really be justified??? As they say: "Nobody ever got rich by over-estimating the intelligence of the public!" (Note: I don't say *which* public! :-) Perhaps the editors know that the public they are aiming at can be relied upon to know that Boeing are based in the USA, but wouldn't know an Antonov from a Fokker (and come to that, I didn't know that Fokker were Dutch until they went bust! :-) Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fredch@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Fred Christiansen) Subject: Re: Media biasness reporting crashes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett Packard, Fort Collins, Colorado Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:52 Adrian C Phillips (acphilli@uoguelph.ca) wrote: > Is it my imagination or have I really noticed the following trend. When > the media reports the crash of a foriegn built aircraft such as the > recent crash in Zaire the report is "the crash of a Russian built Antonov > aircraft" with special note of the country of manufacture. On the other > hand, crashes of North American built aircraft state " the crash of a > Boeing 757" with no mention of the country of manufacture. The reasons could be dastardly or they could be transparent. Among simple reasons one could propose: The media's audience is presumed to know that Boeings are made in the USA, while they might not know where Antonovs are made. -- Fred Christiansen, a Canajan (Eh?) and HP-ite in Colorado Business: Web: http://venoms.fc.hp.com/~fredch/ Email: fredch@fc.hp.com Personal: Web: http://www.frii.com/~fredch/ Email: fredch@frii.com From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: Media biasness reporting crashes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:53 In article , acphilli@uoguelph.ca (Adrian C Phillips) writes: > Is it my imagination or have I really noticed the following trend. When > the media reports the crash of a foriegn built aircraft such as the > recent crash in Zaire the report is "the crash of a Russian built Antonov > aircraft" with special note of the country of manufacture. On the other > hand, crashes of North American built aircraft state " the crash of a > Boeing 757" with no mention of the country of manufacture. Wow, what a happy country you live in ! Well, maybe one reason is that everybody know that Boeing is US. Just wanted to put another perspective on biased reports : here in France, when a foreign plane crashes, the report takes 2 minutes. When an Airbus crashes, all previous crashes are listed and the journalist insists that "although the plane has been declared innocent a debate remains open in a couple of cases" (which, from a technical point of view, is false). JF -- Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr) Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile TOULOUSE From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Media biasness reporting crashes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:53 >Just wanted to put another perspective on biased reports : here in France, >when a foreign plane crashes, the report takes 2 minutes. You're lucky -- I've found that in many cases the US media doesn't even mention foreign plane crashes, even ones that I'd expect to garner at least a little bit of notice. You'd think that the recent An-32 crash into the market in Zaire would have had enough mayhem to attract the US media, but all I saw were the AP wire reports carried by ClariNet, with nothing in the local newspapers or on TV. >When an Airbus crashes, all previous crashes are listed ... That's pretty common here, too. >and the journalist insists that "although the plane has been declared >innocent a debate remains open in a couple of cases" (which, from a >technical point of view, is false). The official report on the Mt. St. Odille (aka Strasbourg) A320 crash on January 20, 1992 does not determine a single, probable cause, and last I heard there were active legal cases involving people associated with the crash and investigation, though officially I suppose you are correct if there is in fact a final report on the crash. Likewise, the debate on Habsheim is technically closed since the official conclusion has been published, despite the fact that there are a number of questionable circumstances involving the crash and the subsequent investigation. Has a final report been issued on the June 30, 1994 A330 test flight crash? I'd expect there to be one by now, but I haven't seen mention of it yet, just preliminary reports published in AW&ST. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Media biasness reporting crashes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Darth Vader School of Personnel Management Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:53 ACP> == Adrian C Phillips ACP> When the media reports the crash of a foriegn built aircraft such as ACP> the recent crash in Zaire the report is "the crash of a Russian ACP> built Antonov aircraft" with special note of the country of ACP> manufacture. On the other hand, crashes of North American built ACP> aircraft state " the crash of a Boeing 757" with no mention of the ACP> country of manufacture. ACP> If this is really a trend, what are the possible reasons for it and can ACP> it really be justified??? The media rarely refers to the place of origin of Airbus aircraft, or Fokker, or BAe, either; it's hardly restricted to North American models (not to be confused with airliners made by North American, now Rockwell ;). It's most likely because they feel (whether they're right or wrong) that their listeners/viewers/readers are less likely to know where Antonov is based than they are to know where Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, or any of the Western European manufacturers are based. -- Christopher Davis * * [ PGP & MIME gladly accepted / PGP keys on keyservers, WWW page, finger ] You know the Internet is too commercialized when... you go to "Internet World" and the Microsoft booth is 8 times the size of the Cisco booth. From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) Subject: Re: Dominican charter carrier loses 757 References: <4faqpe$6r2@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:54 Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU) writes: > A 757 belonging to Alas Nacionales, a charter carrier from the ...{SNIP} > The aircraft was described as being en-route to Frankfurt "via > Berlin Schoenefeld", which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I heard that it was flying first up to Gander Newfoundland for a re-fuel. Any truth to this? From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Dominican charter carrier loses 757 References: <4faqpe$6r2@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:54 >> The aircraft was described as being en-route to Frankfurt "via >> Berlin Schoenefeld", which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. >I heard that it was flying first up to Gander Newfoundland for a re-fuel. >Any truth to this? Apparently the planned route was indeed to Gander, then Berlin, then Frankfurt. The question also arose of whether or not the plane and carrier were ETOPS-certified, and it's *possible* that this route would avoid the need for ETOPS, unlike a non-stop route (which at about 4,900 miles is beyond the 757's range). A non-ETOPS route from London to New York, assuming Narssarssuaq in South Greenland is not available, requires a 13.5% increase in flight time and 3250 kg fuel penalty (for a 757) as compared to a three- or four-engined aircraft (or an aircraft with 135-minute or better ETOPS), with a fairly high probability of cancellation due to weather. It appears that Gander to Berlin would require a substantially lower penalty since the great circle route would already take such a flight further north than London - New York, though the odds of cancellation would not be diminished. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pigpen@pacificnet.net Subject: A,B,C,D-checks Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:54 Just curious as specific differences between the different types of checks done on commercial aircraft. From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 777 drogue chute on tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:54 In article , wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) wrote: (in answer to question about small chute-like object off tail of 777 observedin TV series about the plane. > This was probably a "spin chute". These are commonly used during > flight test to aid in the recovery from an accidental spin. Lest > you think this is unlikely, during one early test of the 777's > stall characteristics it rolled 110 degrees (ie, past vertical) > prior to recovery. This was fixed by a software adjustment to the > aileron control laws. The roll problem and correction description is correct. The spin chute is not. The small trailing cone the original poster observed is a stabilizer for the long trailing wire static source we reel out of the plane to get static pressure readings free of any air turbulence near the plane itself. It is used on all Boeing planes that are in Flight Test. The cone does the same thing that the cone on a Navy's refueling hose does- keeps the cable from whipping about. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: Refueling frequency References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Brigham Young University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:55 In article mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: >Does refueling severely reduce plane turn around time or can it be safely done >while other operations are going on (luggage loading/unloading, catering >load/unload, passenger load/unload) ? On at least one occasion the 737 on which I was flying (Morris Air OAK-SLC) added 2000 lb of fuel after everyone was on board. The plane was just about to be pulled away from the ramps when the capt. elected to add fuel in case deteriorating weather at SLC necessitated alternate destination or delays. BTW: I'll bet that if they could they would have put hand rails in the ceiling of those planes to allow excess passengers to stand in the aisles ala city bus. From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk (Jim Tilbey) Subject: Re: Refueling frequency References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:56 In message mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: > When operating a commuter style operation (many short hops in a day), how > often is a plane refueled ? > For instance, if you run a 737 size aircraft, will it be refueled at every > station it lands, every second one ? (Assuming 1 hour hops). This depends on a number of factors such as weather conditions, selected alternates etc. At the airport where I work we have BATP's operating short hop 100 mile legs. Normally the aircraft can make the round trip without refuelling. However this week due to a combination of strong southerly winds and heavy snow falls at all of the Scottish mainland airfields these aircraft have been refuelling every stop. > Does refueling severely reduce plane turn around time or can it be safely > done while other operations are going on (luggage loading/unloading, > catering load/unload, passenger load/unload) ? In the UK it is legal to refuel an aircraft with 20 or more seats with passengers on board as long as all the main doors are open and each is manned by a member of the cabin crew. > Does refueling cost more in manpower/service costs than carrying a full > load of fuel that saves you a refueling at an intermediate stop ? (eg: > Depart A with enough fuel for A->B and B->C, so you don't have to refuel > at B, but must carry the B->C fuel on the A->B leg.) Read an article in the British Airways in flight magazine a few months back about a B767 flight to Milan. The aircraft was fuelled at Heathrow with enough fuel for the return trip as this worked out a cheaper option than buying fuel in Italy. The same applies to the BATP's mentioned above, because we are an offshore airfield and fuel has to be transported from the mainland it costs more, therefore the airlines only seem to want to buy it when they really have to. -- Jim Tilbey Kirkwall, Orkney, UK jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: Refueling frequency References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Your Organization Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:56 >When operating a commuter style operation (many short hops in a day), how >often is a plane refueled ? How often a plane such as the 737 is refueled depends on many factors. One of which is the price of the fuel at the local airport. If it is expensive, they will tanker fuel and not fuel at the expensive airport. Fueling can be safely done while the plane is being loaded and unloaded. The only restriction was that passengers could not smoke during the ground time due to fueling,(this is no longer even an option however). You ask if refueling severely reduces plane turn around time .... you must mean does it severly increase plane turn around time. I don't think it really does. From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Refueling frequency References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:57 In article , mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) wrote: > When operating a commuter style operation (many short hops in a day), how > often is a plane refueled ? > > For instance, if you run a 737 size aircraft, will it be refueled at every > station it lands, every second one ? (Assuming 1 hour hops). >From my observations when I used to do television commercials for Hawaiian and Aloha Airlines, the planes were refueled when they returned to Honolulu International, but rarely on the other islands except at Hilo on the Big Island, which was their longest run. > Does refueling severely reduce plane turn around time or can it be safely > done while other operations are going on (luggage loading/unloading, > catering load/unload, passenger load/unload) ? Refueling can be accomplished while other operations are going on. I believe, however, that refueling does not generally commence until the passengers are off the plane. Baggage, catering, and other operations continue as the plane is being refueled. > Does refueling cost more in manpower/service costs than carrying a full > load of fuel that saves you a refueling at an intermediate stop ? (eg: > Depart A with enough fuel for A->B and B->C, so you don't have to refuel > at B, but must carry the B->C fuel on the A->B leg.) Not working for an airline, I can only speculate that passenger loads have some say over the fueling practices. In general, an airplane only carries enough fuel for a flight plus the required reserve. Fuel doesn't pay to ride, so the less non-revenue weight on the plane the better. Because fueling is so easy at most airports, I would suspect that the airlines would rather cram as much revenue weight in the plane and have a guy dump some fuel in it as it's turning around at each stop than have to leave freight or mail on the ramp in order to carry enough fuel to avoid a refueling. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:58 In article (Dans l'article) , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote (=E9crivait)=A0: > I had heard the left-plus-right-equals-nothing formula was the case on the > original version of the system, but that it has subsequently been > changed. I don't know if the "side stick priority logic" has been changed but I have found these informations from a rather old FCOM : A320 Flight Crew Operating Manual - FLIGHT CONTROLS - CONTROLS AND INDICATORS 1.27.40 - P 3 - REV 16 - SEQ 002 - "For training only" -------------------- | LATERAL CONSOLES | -------------------- SIDESTICKS ---------- Sidesticks, one on each lateral console, are used for manual pitch and rool control. They are springloaded to neutral. When the A/P is engaged a solenoid operated detend locks both side sitcks in the neutral position. If the pilot applies a force above a given threshold (5 daN in pitch, 3.5 daN in roll) the stick becomes free and A/P disengages. (picture of one sidestick deleted) Side stick priority logic : --------------------------- - When only one pilot operates the sidestick : His demand is sent to the computers. - When the other pilot operates his sidestick in the same or opposite direction both pilots inputs are algebraically added. The assition is limited to single sitck maximum deflexion. A pilot can desactivate the other sick and take full control by pressing and keeping pressed his priority takeover pushbutton. If a takeover push button is pressed more than 30 seconds the system will latch, thus allowing the push button to be released without losing priority. However, at any time, a desactivate stick can be reactivated by momentarily pressing its takeover push button. If both pilots press their takeover pushbuttons, the last pilot to press will get the priority. Note: If an auto pilot is engaged, the first action on a take over push button ----- will disengage it. In a priority situation ----------------------- - A red light will come on in front of the pilot whose stick is desactivated - A green light will come on in front of the pilot who has taken control, if the other stick is not in the neural position (to indicate a potential and unwanted control demand). Note: If, on ground at take off application, one stick is desactivated, ----- the <> warning is triggered. --- end of FCOM page --- Hope it helps. Don't ask me where I've found the FCOM. Francis -- Francis JAMBON | Equipe Ingenierie des Interfaces Homme-Machine | Human-Computer Interfaces Engineering Group Informations sur/on WWW -> http://www-lgi.imag.fr/Les.Personnes/Francis.Jambon/ Telephone / Phone : (+33) 76 63 59 70, Telecopieur / Fax : (+33) 76 44 66 75 ___________ CLIPS-IMAG, B203, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France ___________ From kls Sat Feb 10 12:30:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: DHQM37A@prodigy.com (Jerry Schaefer) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 12:30:58 I would presume that any good pilot, and further presume that the pilot of a commerical grade jet would automatically and instinctly turn to the RIGHT as would the oncoming airplane. This is what is taught to pilots. J. Schaefer - JERRY SCHAEFER DHQM37A@prodigy.com From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dr. Dale Tuttle" Subject: Re: 757 jitter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ciesin Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:10 > Has anyone noticed that if you sit aft of the wings in a 757, when the > aircraft makes a maneuver, there is a slight "jitter" from side to > side? It doesn't happen on 737s, nor 747s. Are you referring to the slight yaw you feel in the aircraft? I saw an article in Aviation Week a month or so ago about this issue. The 767 and 777 have this shimmy problem too, but mostly detectable when you are in the extreme rear of the aircraft. It was bad enough in the 777 to make experienced flight attendants air-sick. AW indicated that a software fix had successfully addressed the problem. I think part of the problem was with the very large tail surfaces on those aircraft, making it necessary to incorporate software fixes to the yaw damper. If I come across it again, I will let you know. dale tuttle From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:10 cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) wrote: >Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr) wrote: >> Still nobody suggests that the driver should keep total control on braking >> power, because only a few people (probably only race pilots, and not all >> of them) are able to apply optimal braking in an emergency situation ... > >I love these all-purpose sweeping statements. If "nobody suggests..." I >guess that means I must be a nobody, because *I* certainly prefer the >option to brake creatively in slippery conditions. >True, such techniques are beyond the experience or needs of most drivers. >But if driver education was as rigorous as pilot training, and focused as >fully on emergency situations (including practice time in simulators), you >might find a lot of drivers preferring the option to override ABS, and for >very good reasons. You use the example of the average driver- I'd like to take that a little further. As a car enthusiast, my opinion of the average driver is pretty low- the average driver has an "I turn the key and it goes" philosophy. He doesn't change his own oil or spark plugs, and doesn't rotate his own tires (heck, most don't even walk around the car before driving it to make sure there's *air* in all the tires). He doesn't know the performance limits of his car. He doesn't feel, smell or hear when something begins to degrade, then rants at how crummy his car is when he winds up stranded. I don't claim to be a great driver, but I try to be an *aware* driver, and I try to understand the capabilites of each car I drive, and be aware of how it is functioning at all times. Now, to the point of airliners. A pilot should be *very* different from the "average" driver I described above, yet we are now seeing whole families of airliners (all manufacturers) that are being made to "feel" the same to the pilot despite the fact that they are very *different* with different capabilites. (eg: the A330/A340, and to a lesser degree the B767/B757). My concern is that pilots can easily lapse into an "I pull the stick and it flies" approach, as they become more and more isolated from the real feels/cues and feedback that the plane gives. Hopefully, this is just a growing pain of aircraft automation systems, and the situation will improve as the technology matures. Automation has the potential to *improve* a pilot's awareness, but if done even slightly wrong it can have the opposite effect. -- 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 Sat Feb 10 15:12:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Fokker Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:11 Perhaps I'm way off base, and admittedly I haven't studied the numbers, but would it not be in Boeing's interest to make a play for Fokker? Granted, it seems to be a money pit, but the Fokker 100 and 70 seem to be ideally suited for many markets, and Boeing could use a 75-100 seat airplane in its stable. Since they canned the UDF 7J7 a number of years ago they seem to have abandoned the idea of getting into that market segment. Just a thought... Jennings From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: Native pilots: was >High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:11 In mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: >So airlines like Cathay and SIA hired experienced and senior pilots and >most of them came from countries such as the UK, Canada and Australia and >USA. >Furthermore, if you look back at the time where these airlines were >created, cities such as Hong Kong showed a HUGE gap between the >rich/educated expats and the chinese masses living in poverty conditions. >Few locals at the time had the education that they now have. So, while >the hiring of expat pilots may seem racist nowadays, was it not their only >option back then ? >The real question should be: How long because cities such as HKG and >Sinpagore will have enough experienced pilots born there so that airlines >like Cathay and SIA won't have to hire expats anymore ? My personal opinion >is that it is slowly happening now. And just where do native pilots get experience? HKG and Sing have almost no private flying, and little if any air force. Chinese are a near-sighted race, further limiting the young pilot pool. Glasses sell well in HKG. Also, I recently read, in AvWeek I believe, that the young people in HKG are not very interested in flying as a career--they make more money in business. Germany, Japan and other countries send their young pilots to the US for training, as we have the planes, the space, and the freedom. You cannot understand the poor English much of the time on the SoCalif airwaves. You must be a Mexican citizen to hold a Mexican commercial pilot's license, so there are no expat crews in Mexico. The pilot shortage in Mexico was so severe about 15 years ago, that Mexicana had a 23 year old 727 captain, and any kid with a commercial ticket (200 hours) could get on as flight engineer. They had 18 year old engineers, and 19 year old copilots. The shortage has since eased. Also, many Mexicans come to the US for pilot training. General Aviation and the freedom to fly privately is a wonderful resource in the US. Ralph From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:11 > >>This is prejudice. > >> > >>Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference > >>in terms of proficiency and professionalism? This is *not* prejudice. I have flown in a lot of places where the "local" pilots (in general) were as good or better than anyone I've run across. I've also been in a lot of places where the local pilots were absolute walking accidents. It has nothing to do with the nationality, ethnicity, or anything else, of the pilot. The color of his/her skin or the language spoken has nothing to do with piloting abilities. It all comes down to training and experience. In many parts of the world, the mindset of the entire aviation community is totally different than it is in many "first world" areas. If the whole perception of what is "safe" is markedly different, you're bound to get a higher accident rate. A good example (and NO flames are intended here) is the former USSR. I have read accident reports for things that have happened there that would result in airline shutdowns in Europe, the USA, or parts of the Far East. Drunken pilots taxiing airplanes through the walls of hangars, pilots asleep (literally) at the controls and running out of fuel, things like that. I personally flew (only once...) with a pilot who rotated the airplane with one hand while putting the gear handle into the up position with the other hand at the same time. That kind of mindset is not generated in a quality training and/or regulatory environment. Statistics don't lie. To be sure, they *can* be manipulated, but to what end? In whose interest would it be to make accident statistics higher for third world airlines? Surely the major world carriers, even if they *could* manipulate these figures, would have no reason to do so. What would they gain? I don't think this is a case of prejudice...it's a case of looking realistically at the numbers and the reasons behind the numbers. Jennings Heilig From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:12 In article , Chua Eng Kiat wrote: >Airam J Preto wrote: >>alfonso@melbpc.org.au (Vince Alfonso) wrote: > >>>The most obvious exceptions to this local rule are SIA, Cathay and >>>DragonAir. All use expatriate crews extensivley and as such all enjoy >>>a high saftey and service standard ... > >>This is prejudice. > >>Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference in >>terms of proficiency and professionalism? > >I fully agree with Airam J Preto. > >What basis is there for expatriate crews to be more professional when >compared to Asian crews? None. > >Vince Alfonso's view, put simply, is racist! Actually, he didn't say "proficiency" or "professionalism". There are cultural factors that can inhibit safety, and these go beyond those mentioned by Karl in his recent reply (in which he mentioned disdain for Western standards. Incidently, the most infamous of these may be the Avianca pilot who yelled "Shut up, Gringo!" to the ground proximity warning moments before he slammed his 747 into the ground). In particular, many other societies put a far greater emphasis on deference to more senior people. This has been recognized for some time as a potential safety problem---a copilot may be far less willing to challange a bad decision by a pilot. Other cultural factors may also play a part---e.g. pilot of one social class, copilot of another, or pilot and copilot from different ethnic groups within a country, and so forth. Someone recently told me a story about Asiana. I have no way of knowing whether it is true, but here goes: Asiana, when it started up, got in a whole bunch of young pilots. Later, it hired some older pilots as well, who had lower seniority rankings within Asiana, but were actually more experienced as former KAL and Korean Air Force pilots. Within the cockpit, these older guys were supposed to defer to the youngsters in the left seat, but socially, the young guys always defered to the older ones. Such factors need to be considered. There's been a lot of emphasis recently on total cockpit management, stressing cooperation between cockpit members, since this seems to result in better safety. It is reasonable and proper to consider how the culture of the cockpit crew may affect such training. They may need to be trained out of unhelpful cultural biases (this in no way assumes the West has no such biases---the recent stress on greater cockpit cooperation is in part an attempt to de-emphasize traditional American individualism). RNA From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aboyd@qnx.com (Andrew Boyd) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: QNX Software Systems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:12 Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > >An airline ... is not about to put a young guy fresh out of pilot school >at the controls of a 747-400 worth many millions of dollars. But isn't that exactly what the european [and asian] airlines do? They don't really have much GA or military to provide a source of experienced pilots. I've read that european airlines routinely take people off the street, put them thru a six-month cram course to get barely qualified and off they go into the right seat. Of course, an experienced pilot is in the left seat, who continues the education of the low-time copilot. Compare that to north america, where it's extraordinarily unusual to get into the right seat of a major airline with less than 3,000 hrs and an ATPL. -- #include From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jhogan@nwlink.com Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:12 In article ekchua@singnet.com.sg (Chua Eng Kiat) writes: >Airam J Preto wrote: >>alfonso@melbpc.org.au (Vince Alfonso) wrote: > >>>The most obvious exceptions to this local rule are SIA, Cathay and >>>DragonAir. All use expatriate crews extensivley and as such all enjoy >>>a high saftey and service standard ... > >>This is prejudice. > >>Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference in >>terms of proficiency and professionalism? > >I fully agree with Airam J Preto. > >What basis is there for expatriate crews to be more professional when >compared to Asian crews? None. There was a very interesting article in either Air Transport World or Airline Business within the last 6-8 months (sorry, I can't be more specific) that discussed differences in flight crew interactions amongst different cultures. One point in the article was that cultural differences between east and west make quite a difference in whether or not a first officer will question an order from the captain. Regards, Jim jhogan@nwlink.com My opinions are my own and do not represent the opininons of my employer. From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Delta L1011 N781 incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:13 I talked yesterday with a Delta Airlines engineer who told me about an incident of a few months ago with a Delta L1011 N781 (possibly "N781EA" otherwise typically their craft end in "DA" or "DL"). This is an ex-Eastern Airlines L1011. He said that the aircraft had departed on what would turn out to be its last flight, from Hawaii bound for the mainland USA. A couple of hours out from Hawaii, the aircraft suddenly depressurized as a result of a nine foot long stress fracture in the structural members between the rear left door and the tailplane. The aircraft descended and slowly continued to California, where it landed safely, and was decomissioned and sold back to Lockheed for experimentation. I never heard about this incident in the media, and don't recall seeing it discussed here. Does anyone have more details? -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 770 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A. From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: meb4593@webevt01.ca.boeing.com Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:13 >>>>> "Bradg" == Bradg Gillies writes: Bradg> I work on both Boeings and Airbusses on a regulsar basis. The Bradg> Airbus, forthe most part is easier to work on than the Boeing. Bradg> Boeing haas a way of making the aircraft unfriendly to the Bradg> Mechanics. I hope this has changed with the 777. I still It has. There was a Chief Mechanic (Jack Hessburg) assigned to the project with the same level of responsibility of any Chief Engineer; he was the guy looking out for the mechanics and to keep maintenance costs low. A lot of work was done on the Central Maintenance Computer. One of the problems we had early on the 747-400 CMC were the large number of nuisance maintenance messages ... A CMC doesn't help a lot when you have to ignore most of the messages you receive. We also gave the airlines the ability to customize data acquisition and report building; for example, they could gather engine data and trigger reports if they were exceeding certain parameters. This could allow them to predict when certain engine maintenance must be performed before a problem develops. As many of you know, this was a digitally developed airplane using the CATIA system. They also developed "CATIA-MAN"; they could simulate a mechanic in the drawing system to ensure he would have access to parts within the airplane in order to perform maintenance. Due to our lengthy flight test program, Jack said the airplane was acting like it had been in service for ten years, soon after we made our first deliveries ... -- Michael Bain WebMaster (206) 294-0913 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Cabin Systems - IFE meb4593@webevt01.ca.boeing.com From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:13 >Example: Airbus A320 has to make an emergency go around to avoid collision >on runway. THe pilot pushes the throttles to the stops and the computer >determines the amount of thrust developed (required). The computer cannot >see the situation and keeps all parameters within SAFE limits. This does >not always result in the desired ooutcome. Boeing aircraft same scenario. >Pilot overides computer pushes throttles to he stops. Engine develops 115% >power. The plane THerefore evades the problem faster and sacrifices the >engines to save the plane. Don't get me wrong the engines will work just >fine at that power setting for a few minutes and will get them home. That >is jus one way I think boeing has done beter over Airbus. Let the pilot >have the final say. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your description of what happens on a Boeing airplane when a pilot pushes the throttle to the "stops" is incorrect. Recent Boeing airplanes (since the 757/767) have electronic engine controllers (EEC) that prevent overboosting the engines. Unless the EEC fails, pushing the power lever to the forward stop will provide the maximum certificated power level for the particular phase of flight. Overboosting is not an option. DS From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: New-generation 737 dimensions. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:14 A previous post inquired about the relative lengths of the 737 family. Here are the official dimensions as taken from our 737 product marketing book. 737-500 Overall length- 101 ft 9 in. Height- 36 ft 6 in. Span- 94 ft 9 in. 737-600 Overall length- 102 ft 6 in. Height- 41 ft 3 in. Span- 112 ft 7 in. 737-300 Overall length- 109 ft 7 in. Height- 36 ft 6 in. Span- 94 ft 9 in. 737-700 Overall length- 110 ft 4 in. Height- 41 ft 2 in. Span- 112 ft 7 in. 737-400 Overall length- 119 ft 7 in. Height- 36 ft 6 in. Span- 94 ft 9 in. 737-800 Overall length- 129 ft 6 in. Height- 41 ft 2 in. Span- 112 ft 7 in. The -500 and -600 share the same fuselage, as do the -300 and -700. The slight differences in overall lengths are due to the wider sweptback span of the horizontal stabilizers on the X-series. The fuselage of the -800, however, is slightly longer than the -400's fuslelage. The new 737 family offers a variety of flight deck display options that are loaded into the system via floppy disk. This will allow an airline to configure their primary flight and navigation displays to resemble the older 737s in their fleets, or to use the latest "777" type displays. The new 737s all will be GPS-capable, and will be able to take advantage of CNS/ATM (or FANS as it's sometimes called) as it's introduced around the world. Finally, the new 737 family offers an overhead TV entertainment system as an option. This systems appears to be similar to the overhead monitor system some airlines have installed in their 757s. Naturally, an airline could opt to install a seatback video system if they didn't mind the extra weight and complexity. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: ? for Airbus bashers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:14 I'm surprised at the Airbus bashing that's going on here. My airline ordered its first Airbuses (A300-600R) several years ago and I've heard nothing but praise. It's our MD-11s that get bashed. I'd like to hear some opinions from those who work alongside the A300-600R and how it compares to the other jets. (Please post your responses). From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: FedEx HUD's (was: landing in fog) 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: 10 Feb 96 15:12:14 pmagee@teleport.com (Patrick Magee) asks Which aircraft have HUD's installed? Who is the HUD manufacturer? Not sure, but Alaska Airlines pioneered an initial installation with Flight Dynamics HUDs and they are reported to work great. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: @crems.rockwell.com@cca.rockwell.com (Norman Ovens) Subject: Re: FedEx HUD's (was: landing in fog) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: nlovens1@crems.rockwell.com Organization: General Aviation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:14 In article , pmagee@teleport.com says... >In article brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) writes: >>along with their aircraft. FedEx also uses head-up displays >>on some aircraft to facilitate the certification to lower >>minimums. >Which aircraft have HUD's installed? Who is the HUD manufacturer? Flight Dynamics (Oregon,USA), Sextant Avionique (France) both make commercial aircraft Head Up Displays. The Canadair RJ is certified to operate with HUD to Cat IIIa minima (Flight Dynamics) Dassault Falcon 2000 and Saab 2000 both have programs to certify HUD installations for manual Cat III approaches (Flight Dynamics). Norm From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Dobson Subject: Ilyushin Il-76 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HunterLink Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:14 Would somebody kindly let me know where I can get performance data for the Ilyushin Il-76. Thanks in advance for your help. Regards, Paul Dobson From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: billh1@gramercy.ios.com (William R. Hoscheit) Subject: Ilyushin 62 Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pacific Presentation Graphics Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:15 can anyone offer any suggestions on acquiring a schematic/technical specs for an Ilyushin 62 or 62-M? I also could use a good color photo of one in Aeroflot livery. I will gladly make it worth the while of all who help me in this quest. (I am trying to create an IL-62 for Microsoft Flight Simulator) Thanks in advance for any help. Bill From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeromed@goodnet.com (Jerome Dawson) Subject: Re: AA MD-11 tail tip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jeromed@goodnet.com Organization: DocuMedia Technology, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:15 No info from me, but a request... If you have any photos of this incident or if you know of a photo of the FedEx tail-tip with one of their DC-10s a few years back, please post the photo or contact me by e-mail as I would like to make use of the photos for some training materials being developed. Thanks! Jerome Dawson jeromed@goodnet.com From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ex aero scientia <11JBUSENBARK@gallua.gallaudet.edu> Subject: Lockheed TriStar 200 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:15 I was recently on a red-eye flight with DL from SEA to ATL. A 1011 was used for this flight. After getting the registration number of the aircraft, which was N724DA, I looked in my Commercial Airliner Production Checklist and found that this certain tristar was delivered in '78 and converted from an L-1011-1 to an L-1011-200 in 1980. I'm aware of the -1, -250 and the -500 series, but the 200 variant is new to me. Can any of you shed some light on the technics of this one? What modifications were made, and for what purpose(s) and advantage(s)? Thanks in advance. Jackson D. Busenbark Gallaudet University Washington, D.C. 11jbusenbark@gallua.bitnet 11jbusen@gallux.gallaudet.edu From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Lockheed TriStar 200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:15 >I was recently on a red-eye flight with DL from SEA to ATL. A 1011 was used >for this flight. After getting the registration number of the aircraft, which >was N724DA, I looked in my Commercial Airliner Production Checklist and found >that this certain tristar was delivered in '78 and converted from an L-1011-1 >to an L-1011-200 in 1980. Hey, that's the first L-1011 I ever flew on! It's also familiar because it is (almost) a one-of-a-kind aircraft. >I'm aware of the -1, -250 and the -500 series, but the 200 variant is new to >me. Can any of you shed some light on the technics of this one? What >modifications were made, and for what purpose(s) and advantage(s)? Lockheed's terminology for the various L-1011 TriStar models is truly bewildering, as I've mentioned in this newsgroup before. I'll only try to describe a bit of it here; for the entire sordid story see the March 1990 issue of Airliners Monthly News. The initial TriStar model is officially listed on its type certificate as an L-1011-385-1. Lockheed marketing folks variously refered to this model as the TriStar 1 or L-1011-1. Unlike Boeing, which codes the customer (airline) in the model number, Lockheed put that info in the serial numbers, e.g, N724DA's SN is 193C-1151, where 193C means it was built for Delta and 1151 means it was the 151st TriStar built. The next two derivatives were the L-1011-385-1-14 and L-1011-385-1-15, which feature the same engines (but see next paragraph) as the original model but an increase in MGTOW to 466,000 lbs (both called TriStar 100 or L-1011-100) with an option to increase the MGTOW further to 474,000 lbs (in which case they're referred to as a 100I or Improved model). The difference is that the -15 has two added center section fuel tanks. A Group 3 L-1011-385-1 (yet another designation, which covers the 52nd and later aircraft off the line) can up upgraded to these specs in which case it takes on the new designation(s). While the L-1011-385-1-14 and -15 originally had the same RB.211-22B engines as the L-1011-385-1, the cerficate included use of higher thrust RB.211-524B engines. Even though the official model is the same, Lockheed calls these aircraft a TriStar 200. Again, Group 3 L-1011s could be upgraded, and Delta and LTU each upgraded one of their aircraft to this standard -- Delta's example was our N724DA. (Additional TriStar 200s were built as such.) So, the TriStar 200 is a TriStar 100 with more powerful engines, and in turn a TriStar 100 is a TriStar 1 with higher gross weights. The only other *production* variant is the L-1011-385-3 (known to most of us a TriStar 500 or L-1011-500) which is shorter but has higher gross weights, giving it much greater range. However, there a number of other variants. The TriStar 250 you mention actually refers to two different versions. An initial version, with the bigger engines and a further boost in MGTOW to 484,000 lbs, was never built as far as I can tell. Around 1985, Lockheed offered an upgrade kit for any Group 3 aircraft to increase the MGTOW to 510,000 lbs, the same as a TriStar 500, with the bigger engines of the TriStar 200 and greater fuel tankage as an option. These are *still* officially L-1011-385-1-14 or -15 models; Delta has the only ones. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Feb 10 15:12:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tturton@samson.TX.HAC.COM (Tom Turton) Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust rever References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tturton@samson.TX.HAC.COM Organization: Hughes Training Incorporated, WCO Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 96 15:12:16 In article 170@ohare.Chicago.COM, peter neville gurnell () writes: > > According to the DC-10-30 F.C.O.M. Vol.III p.17-10-03 (This should be > in my instantly retrivable data file, but it isn't) to quote para. 3 > of the description of the T/R system, "An in-flight reverse thrust interlock > prevents deployment of the thrust reversers unless the landing gear is > down. After landing gear is down, initial reverser lever movement un- > locks the respective system, starts reverser deployment which is indicated > by the REVERSER UNLOCK (easily visible) and REVERSER VALVE OPEN lights > (situated where no-one is looking) coming on. The reverser system, when fully > deployed, will release the reverser lever interlocks for engine 1 and > 3. (Here is the important part) For engine 2 reverser lever interlock > release, full reverser deployment and ***NOSE GEAR*** ground shift > (gear squat switch) mechanism actuation is required. > > ie: You can pull 1 & 3 into reverse as soon as the mains are on but > you have to wait for the nosewheel to touch to get #2 out. Any idea if this nose gear weight on wheel switch is something new or if it has always been on DC-10's? I'm curious because back around the very early 1980's, I was working at Douglas in the aero stability and control section as a relatively new engineer. We had a question at that time from an airline customer who wanted to know the best technique for landing with different landing gear failures (i.e. nose gear up/mains down , one main up/other main and nose down). I was tasked with doing the analysis work, but at that time was unaware of any lockout, and was not told of any by my supervisor. Therefore, I took into account the thrust reverser effect of #2 in trying to hold the nose up(with nose gear failed) as long as reasonable (have to let it down before airspeed drops too low and you lose elevator effectiveness resulting in the nose coming down less than gracefully). If this switch WAS in existance at that time, it points out one danger of compartmentalizing groups in large companies (right hand doesn't know what left hand is doing!). Usually, our data books included notes of under what conditions something like a thrust reverser would not be available. --Tom T. From news Thu Feb 8 02:47:48 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-ecu.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Seattle trip report website Date: 7 Feb 1996 21:43:38 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4fc2ia$76l@gsb-ecu.Stanford.EDU> I recently wrote a trip report about 24 hours I spent in Seattle touring aviation sites (Boeing, Museum of Flight, Museum of Flight Restoration Center, and so forth). Alan Shih was inspired enough to put it in webform (with my permission), so you can now find it at: http://WWW.Zmall.Com/travel/info/camera/us/wa/seattle/ RNA From news Thu Feb 8 05:26:56 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Sino-Korean AE100 (Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY?) Date: 8 Feb 1996 04:09:59 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4fcp6o$d20@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> In article , H Andrew Chuang wrote: >>The best thing, however, would be for Fokker to die and for the Koreans >>and the Chinese to stop this nonsense about building the AE100. > >I agree with you that the market will be overcrowded with the AE100. >However, I don't think it's such a bad idea to transfer the low-end >market to low-cost countries. China will have a tremendous domestic >market that can sustain the AE100 production. The Europeans as well >as Boeing and McDonnell Douglas all realize the potential, and they >are fiercely competing to be the Western partner for the Sino-Korean >project. Unfortunately, the biggest problem the AE100 is facing now >is that the Chinese and the Koreans don't seem to be able to agree on >anything. I strongly suspect that having low labor costs gives countries little or no advantage in the creation of commercial aircraft. Even the most generic 737 is more complicated and more "hand-built" than the most expensive Italian sports car. This is a high-skill business, one with a very substantial learning curve. I think that Boeing and Airbus both realize that Asian production is inevitable for non-economic reasons (every country has to have their symbols of virility---unfortunately the national airline or an airplane-making capability is often mistaken for a sign of national vigor, e.g. the Indonesian mania). Hence they're determined to get a good position at the trough. Actually, from the point of view of technology transfer, starting off with the F100 might not be a bad idea. You can't run before you crawl, as the Chinese discovered with the Y-10. RNA From news Mon Feb 12 18:54:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics. Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: m.l.mcmanus@larc.nasa.gov (Mary McManus) Subject: Hi-Alpha Technology Conference Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:35:52 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu NASA is sponsoring the High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Conference to be held September 17-19, 1996 at the NASA Langley Research Center. This conference will provide a national forum (restricted to US citizens) to discuss high- angle-of-attack technology issues in the design of future highly agile military aircraft. There are four primary objectives to this conference: (1) Report final results of the NASA High-Alpha Technology Program (HATP); (2) Discuss results of other National programs; (3) Summarize high-alpha technology "Lessons-Learned"; and (4) Discuss future directions for research in high-performance military aircraft. A broad spectrum of research results will be presented from generic studies as well as from leading NASA, DOD, and industry fighter technology programs. It is envisioned that the discussion of future directions will involve NASA, DOD, ARPA, and industry, and will encourage opportunities for future collaboration. Conference information including the call for papers is available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.larc.nasa.gov/org/conf/ Information can also be obtained by contacting: Mr. James R. Burley II Deputy Leader, High-Performance & High-Speed Aircraft Office NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop 265 Hampton, Va. 23681-0001 FAX: 804-864-8291 EMAIL: j.r.burley@larc.nasa.gov From news Tue Feb 13 00:17:25 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: mehren@address.net (Mark Mehren) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Subject: Re: Add MD-90 to thrust/weight ratio table? Date: 12 Feb 1996 15:23:24 -0800 Organization: AddressNET Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4fbfiv$qn3@tofu.alt.net> References: <4f8rnv$lf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> In article <4f8rnv$lf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU says... > >I flew a Delta MD-90 yesterday and was impressed by its vigorous >ascent. A while ago someone made a table of thrust/weight ratios >for various airliners showing the 757 ended on top (apart from the >Concorde that is, which is in a special category!). > >I was wondering if that person (Andrew Chuang? Karl Swartz?) could >add the MD-90 to the table to see where it stacks up. In some ways >it reminded me of the 757, being long and thin with big high-bypass >engines. > >RNA > So far only Delta has taken the 28,000 lb. thrust option. Alot of power for this A/C! When they are empty (during production flight tests), they fly like rockets! MD-80 max. thrust per engine tops out at about 20,000 lb each. From news Tue Feb 13 00:26:46 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 12 Feb 1996 15:38:06 -0800 Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4fbn97$186@news1.ucsd.edu> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> <4f8ksp$i2c@kragar.kei.com> I understand that McDonnel douglas has held talks with Fokker too? What impact will such a merger have on the MD-95 program. "Merger" is wild speculation... From news Tue Feb 13 00:59:39 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!bgate From: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Subject: Re: Add MD-90 to thrust/weight ratio table? Date: 12 Feb 1996 15:55:35 -0800 Organization: Loughborough University of Technology Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: References: <4f8rnv$lf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> In article <4f8rnv$lf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: >I flew a Delta MD-90 yesterday and was impressed by its vigorous >ascent. A while ago someone made a table of thrust/weight ratios >for various airliners showing the 757 ended on top (apart from the >Concorde that is, which is in a special category!). > >I was wondering if that person (Andrew Chuang? Karl Swartz?) could >add the MD-90 to the table to see where it stacks up. In some ways >it reminded me of the 757, being long and thin with big high-bypass >engines. > >RNA > The MD-90-30 has thrust to weight ratio of 0.3204. For comparison: Boeing 757-200 0.3645 Boeing 737-300 0.3213 Airbus A321-100 0.3309 MD-81 0.2748 MD-87 0.2976 The MD-90-30 value is certainly higher than that of its predecessor, the MD-81/2/37, probably due to the higher bypass-ratio engine producing less thrust (relatively) at cruise, as quoted take-off distance at 2135m is similar to the MD-81 (2195m). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - | Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, B.Eng (Hons) | Department of Aeronautical & Automotive | | Tel: +44 (0)1509 223454 | Engineering & Transport Studies, | | Fax: +44 (0)1509 267613 | Loughborough University, | | Email: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk | Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From news Tue Feb 13 01:04:39 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!tty5-26.swipnet.se!user From: kurt@winzell.se (Kurt Winzell) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Subject: Fuel consumption Stockholm and Cairo Date: 12 Feb 1996 16:11:35 -0800 Organization: Winzell Production AB Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: Hello, we are doing a minor research project on Egypt. We would like some answers on the following questions: 1 How great is the fuel consumption on a flight between Stockholm and Cairo of a normal sized passenger plane? 2 How many passengers does a normal plane take? 3 What is the price of one litre/gallon fuel? 4 What is the total cost for a flight between Stockholm and Cairo? 5 How are the costs distributed among personal costs, machine costs, costs at the departure and arrival airports, and so on? We would be grateful if someone would answer some of or all of these questions. Best wishes, grade 5 and 6, Ostavalls skola, in the middle of Sweden From news Tue Feb 13 01:04:51 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: g.stoel@lr.tudelft.nl (geoffrey stoel) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 12 Feb 1996 16:14:42 -0800 Organization: Delft University of Technology Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4fdv8m$g5s@mo6.rc.tudelft.nl> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <4f8ksp$i2c@kragar.kei.com> <4f97jc$2po@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: >>I don't think so. Here in Holland Fokker is one of the most >>High-Techiest industries. With this industry gone, I doubt if we ever >>get it back. >Fokker also does (apparently profitable) things in the military sphere. >These parts are likely to continue to operate, so it's not a total loss. OK, but what operator or military power would buy planes or products from a bankrupted, low credited company >>Little note on that: Boeing could have been bankrupted if the 747 >>wouldn't have been a great succes. >Indeed. What's the connection? I meant to show, that in aviation you sometimes have to make very big decisions and Fokker had some bad luck. CU later, Geoffrey Stoel From news Tue Feb 13 02:47:29 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!bronze.coil.com!not-for-mail From: ebright@coil.com (Jim Ebright) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) Date: 12 Feb 1996 19:27:26 -0800 Organization: Central Ohio Internet Link, Inc. (614)242-3814 Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4fainv$evh@bronze.coil.com> References: In article , Gunnar Aaboe wrote: ... >There have also been a lot of near accident, >discovered by radar operators. Cali had no radar, it having been blown up by rebels years earlier. The replacement system was/is sitting in shipping trailers at the airport. It has been there for a year and a half and has not been installed. I assume the delay is in in defference to Columbia's main export industry not desiring radar coverage ;) So there was no radar operator to warn the AA flight of the deviation from pattern. >Is it a common factor that accidents happens in bad >weather conditions and during landings ? Bad weather makes it a lot harder to fly aircraft, safty margins are much smaller. And landings are when the aircraft is closest to the ground, the hitting of which is usually the immediate cause of aircraft destruction. >Why is "pilot error" nearly always the reason ? >(Is this like the dataoperator unable to find the mistake and clames it >is a virus ?) I've been told there is >some research reports on this fenomen, but they are not public... As Far As I Know (AFAIK), almost all of these studies are public. Accident reports are public, quite well researched and documented, even in the military. In large part, it is thru these activities that accidents have come to be understood and, subsiquently, aircraft have become much safer. I don't believe pilot error is the dominate cause of accidents in any aircraft except in general aviation (private). There you are facing a large number of relatively inexperienced folk with a small number of hours in the air. Just like in automobiles, this is the most accident prone group. I am sure some of the gurus will post statistics on this point :) -- A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: ebright@bronze.coil.com ((0 0))_______ "A million dollars, ... I can get that. I can get that \ / the \ in cash. That's no problem." -secret White House tape. (--)\ OSU | "Always be your best. Never be petty." -resignation speech. From news Tue Feb 13 03:45:07 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: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 12 Feb 1996 21:14:42 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4fp6o2$700@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4f8ksp$i2c@kragar.kei.com> <4f97jc$2po@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <4fdv8m$g5s@mo6.rc.tudelft.nl> In article <4fdv8m$g5s@mo6.rc.tudelft.nl>, geoffrey stoel wrote: >rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: > >>>I don't think so. Here in Holland Fokker is one of the most >>>High-Techiest industries. With this industry gone, I doubt if we ever >>>get it back. > >>Fokker also does (apparently profitable) things in the military sphere. >>These parts are likely to continue to operate, so it's not a total loss. > >OK, but what operator or military power would buy planes or products >from a bankrupted, low credited company That's why Fokker has been given a bridge loan---to separate the profitable parts from the commercial aircraft producer. Lockheed is still a respected military producer despite the fact that it failed in the commercial arena. >>>Little note on that: Boeing could have been bankrupted if the 747 >>>wouldn't have been a great succes. > >>Indeed. What's the connection? > >I meant to show, that in aviation you sometimes have to make very big >decisions and Fokker had some bad luck. But luck, good, bad or indifferent, is an accepted part of life, and of business. RNA From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Delta L1011 N781 incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:15 Here's some info on that L10. N781DL SN: 193A-1003 Delivery Date: 05/22/73 ex-EAL N302EA Dave tristar500@aol.com http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011/ The "Unofficial" Lockheed L-1011 TriStar Page From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Curtis R. Anderson" Subject: Re: AA MD-11 tail tip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gleepy's Henhouse Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:16 Jerome Dawson wrote: > > No info from me, but a request... > > If you have any photos of this incident or if you know of a photo of the > FedEx tail-tip with one of their DC-10s a few years back, please post > the photo or contact me by e-mail as I would like to make use of the > photos for some training materials being developed. Check the book _Jetliners: The World's Great Jetliners, 1950s To Today_ by Clinton H. Groves from Motorbooks International, ISBN 0-87938-821-8 on pages 70-71 for the picture. On page 7 of the book are instructions on how one can order copies of the slides used in the book. The address given is Airliners America/ATP 3014 Abelia Court #33 San Jose, CA 95121-2401 +1 408 629-2121 -- Curtis R. Anderson, "Official Chicken Breeder of Hill 10", SP 2.5?, KoX URLs: http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ mailto:cra@servtech.com ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ Opinions mine (not Service Tech's!) unless marked otherwise!!! From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: FDR/CVR recovery aids 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: 16 Feb 96 04:33:16 The recorders squwak, I know, to help in their recovery. With just sonar ping, or RF too? For how long? To what depth without failure? -- 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........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Harvie/CAM/Lotus Subject: Lecture on AAS delays Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:16 For Boston-area airliners list members with an interest in the next-generation air traffic control system (and why it's late), there will be a talk at MIT on Thursday, February 22, 1996. For directions and location info., call MIT at (617) 253-1000. Title: (Mis)adventures with AAS: My Experiences Speaker: Fred B. Schneider Computer Science Department Cornell University THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 Talk at 3:15 PM (Refreshments at 3:00 pm) ROOM NE43 - 518 Abstract: The next generation air-traffic control system, AAS, is overdue and over budget. Like the 3 blind men and the elephant, there are differing opinions about "Why?". This talk offers one -- that of an outside consultant to the project who was concerned with fault- tolerance. Host : Barbara Liskov From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: Boeing 767 incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Direct Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:17 ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) wrote: > > I just heard on the radio an interesting story concerning a Canadian > airlines Boeing 767. Apparently last night (Jan. 29), at Pearson > International airport in Toronto, Canada, the Boeing 767 was parked at its > landing gate, and suddenly a strong wind gust hit the plane such that the > plane rotated some 90 degrees, and nearly hit a British Airways 747. The > report stated that the wind lifted the plane by its wings, causing it to > turn. > > In cases when there is lots of gusty wind outside, are there any tie-down > or other proceedures for making sure that these larger 'parked' planes don't > accidentally move around? Considering that the Vr for a 767 with no lift devices deployed would be in the neighbourhood of 200 kt. it is highly unlikely that there was sufficent wind to "lift" the aircraft and that wind would have to be coming directly out of T3. A more likely scenario would be that the terminal apron was iced over and a strong wind blew the verical stab. such that the nose swung around. A downdraught on the horizontal stab. would have helped. Once the aircraft is parked at the gate and the groundcrew has notified the flight deck that the wheel chocks are in place the parking brake is released. I was once in the Wx office at BUF in the middle of winter and the wind was blowing quite strongly. We watched in horror as the DC-3 we had just parked slid 50 yards across the ramp and turned 180 deg. with nobody in it. I have never heard of any "tie downs" for large commercial aircraft and I suspect that the frequency of occur- ance of winds which would require the procedure, is so minimal that it would not be cost effective. Peter. "Behind every great fortune, there is a crime." From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:18 In article , ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) wrote: >I just heard on the radio an interesting story concerning a Canadian >airlines Boeing 767. Apparently last night (Jan. 29), at Pearson >International airport in Toronto, Canada, the Boeing 767 was parked at its >landing gate, and suddenly a strong wind gust hit the plane such that the >plane rotated some 90 degrees, and nearly hit a British Airways 747. The >report stated that the wind lifted the plane by its wings, causing it to >turn. actually The aircraft was substantially damaged and was in the Hangar for about a week. Brad From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeromed@goodnet.com (Jerome Dawson) Subject: Re: 757 jitter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jeromed@goodnet.com Organization: DocuMedia Technology, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:18 >> Has anyone noticed that if you sit aft of the wings in a 757, when the >> aircraft makes a maneuver, there is a slight "jitter" from side to >> side? It doesn't happen on 737s, nor 747s. > ***** This bit of "dutch roll" felt in the aft area of the cabin is very common on large airliners and it certainly does happen on both the 737 and 747. The 747, in fact, is famous for being able to rock you to sleep in the aft cabin. I've watched the level of water in a glass gently swirl around below the rim as the tail "did its thing". The phenomenon is less noticable in the 737 but becomes more pronounced as the plane is loaded more aft heavy or at high gross weights. My guess would be that the damping effect of the tail surfaces gets a bit less effective as the center of gravity moves aft. Not a lot, mind you -- nothing to worry about -- but, riding in the aft cabin of a full 737, you can feel those little side-to-side kicks and shimmies from time to time, particularly as the plane is banked into turns on departure and approach. Jerome From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: randl@direct.ca Subject: B-757 Puerto Plata Accident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Direct Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:20 Here's my thoughts regarding the 757 accident Feb 6/96. I am an Airline Transport Pilot, familiar with POP (Puerto Plata) and the Dominican Republic Air Traffic Control System. FYI, No, I have not flown 757/767's. Reported Facts: B-757 charter flight, routing POP to Berlin and Frankfurt, Germany. Total 189 (on board? passengers?). B-767 was original equipment. 757 sub due to hydraulic prob on 767. Turkish crew. Late night (23:00 local) departure. Radar controller first to notice anything wrong. He/she saw flight turn right, away from flight-planned route. No reported radio contact other than "Standby". Otherwise, no emergency mentioned at all. Aircraft crashed into the ocean just two minutes into the flight, less than twelve miles off-shore. Last news reported that as of 23:00 eastern time Feb 07, no reported survivors; no inflated life-vests, etc. Weather reported as "raining with lightning". Does anyone have the actual aviation weather report, including altimeter setting? Suppose the following: Crew sets 29.92" (normal QNE setting) shortly after departure. Altitude alerter set for initial FL. Normal takeoff, with handoff to SDQ (Santo Domingo) ACC. Flight turns back for reasons unknown (Pressurization prob? Overheated or on-fire tire(s)? Px Medical? Turbulence?). Looking forward to flight home (at least on the "home side" of the Atlantic since crew was Turkish), crew is not set up for rapid return to POP. With Alt Alert set to go off on the climb, it would not chime (in this hypothetical explanation) on descent back to POP, thus not warning crew of low altitude. "Black Hole" situation present if crew turns back relying on visual cues. Without instrument cross-checking, in the rush to get back to POP, situational awareness easily lost. Rapid decent, with one or both altimeters mis-set, and combined with the above, can lead to CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain - in this case, the Atlantic Ocean). Their GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) would have likely have gone off. Recently, we've been trained to respond immediately on any GPWS alert (in past many false alarms occurred, leading many crews to second guess the alerts). This flight crew was said to have turned right, towards a (relatively) high outcropping of land just east of POP, and may have discounted GPWS warning because of this (if they knew the local area, that is). Weather also seems to be a factor (perhaps the primary). If so, microburst encounter?? (Although Most CB's (Thunderclouds) in the area form over the northern mountains just south of POP. ------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the above chain of events seem plausible. I have dealt with numerous accidents similar to the above, all with the same unfortunate results. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Does anyone know if the 757 involved here uses the same engine/reverser system that Lauda Air used on that 767 that had it's reverser deploy in cruise a few years back?? (Another explanation??) What about a mainwheel-bay fire (from dragging brakes?) (Although I'd tend to doubt this since the flight took off at night; mind you the temp. may have been still at least high 70-80's and the taxi for take-off at POP is still quite a distance if they departed eastbound). ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you feel this is all premature, DON"T BOTHER FLAMING ME! My primary interest is flight safety. The accident just happened; we all know it takes months of proper accident investigation to find probable cause. Just don't waste everyone's time mentioning this or flaming me - we all know these facts. But it seems with such an excellent record this type has, I can only think of this as a possible cause, so I wanted to get everyone thinking SITUATIONAL AWARENESS and WEATHER right away! Remember, never assume a thing in flying. Armchair accident investigation is easy - we'll all have to consider the report once it is released. That will show the real work of considering what happened. Use this unfortunate accident to remind your crews and yourself "things happen". It all takes just a few seconds of pre-planning to avoid losing situational awareness. Break the chain of events and you will all hopefully get home safely! Any thoughts??? Posted to alt.disasters.aviation / sci.aeronautics / sci.aeronautics.airliners (I feel this is relavent to all three). FLY SAFE! From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B-757 Puerto Plata Accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:20 >"Black Hole" situation present if crew turns back relying on visual cues. Interesting thought. For those unfamiliar with the phenomenon, there were a number of early 727 crashes (at least four) which were ultimately attributed to this problem. >Does anyone know if the 757 involved here uses the same >engine/reverser system that Lauda Air used on that 767 that had it's >reverser deploy in cruise a few years back?? (Another explanation??) The Lauda 767 had recent, FADEC-equipped Pratt and Whitney PW4000 engines, while the Birgenair 757 had early (probably non-FADEC) RB.211-535E4 engines, so there's probably little or no significant similarity. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:20 >Let's say they turned back for a minor reason like a warning light... >There have been news references to possible lightning strikes. >Normally one would discount this but what's the SOP on fuel >dumping in areas which have `humidity lightning'? The 757 is not required to have, and does not have, the capability to dump fuel. DS From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:21 Daan Sandee wrote: >(He furthermore claims that the >MD-80 does not automatically retract spoilers when the stick shaker >is activated, and cites pilots that say that the L-1011 does.) The spoilers on the L-1011 will only retract at stick shaker if the Direct-Lift Control system is active. DLC is only active with flaps greater than 30 and 2 of 3 throttles not at MAX power. Since the flaps on the Cali airplane were up this system would not have helped any. David http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011/ From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:21 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Oeger Tours, based in Hamburg, said it had chartered half of the seats >on the plane. Several reports claim Oeger chartered its share of the >flight at the last minute, after a 767 that it had originally chartered >was grounded due to mechanical troubles. (One report says that flight >actually departed but returned to Puerto Plata after a few minutes. >It's hard to see any relevance to this unless there turns out to have >been some miscalculation due to a last-minute doubling of load.) What follows is pure speculation. If indeed the 767 did depart and return, what is the possibility there was fuel contamination as a common cause. Or even worse, use of the wrong fuel entirely ? This prompts the following questions. Is there any safeguard to prevent uploading the wrong fuel on to a jet airliner. Something like nozzle sizes, perhaps. I know the various fuels are different colors, but this was nighttime. If not, what would be likely to happen ? Assuming the 757 had some (correct) fuel left in the tanks upon arrival, would it have been able to taxi, depart and fly for three minutes before the engines quit. Does anyone have examples of prior incidents of mis-fueling on airliners. I know of a C130 Hercules which suffered this in Africa some years back. The airplane survived but required substantial repairs in order to purge the system. Brian Maddison From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ever@pncl.co.uk (Tony Everett) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pinnacle Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:22 > >Let's say they turned back for a minor reason like a warning light... >There have been news references to possible lightning strikes. >Normally one would discount this but what's the SOP on fuel >dumping in areas which have `humidity lightning'? Lightning strikes rarely cause any problems to aircraft apart from maybe causing compasses to read incorrectly etc. but I've always been taught that you don't dump fuel in the vicinity of static discharges (i.e. lightning) for obvious reasons. Tony Everett. BA 777s From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@SEI.CMU.EDU (Mark Bell) Subject: Software Override Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Software Engineering Institute Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:22 I've been following the Airbus vs. Boeing discussions on this and other newsgroups. There have been quite a few posts stating that the "facts" show that the Airbus viewpoint has contributed to several accidents. Since I work at the Software Engineering Institute, and am also a pilot, I've taken a rather particular interest in this issue. I'd like to know the sources that show these "facts" (ie, NTSB reports, FAA reports, foreign agency reports, studies etc. specifying crash causes that have directly or indirectly been attributed to the pilot's inability to override the flight software, or the software placing too much constraint on the pilot). Note that I'm NOT saying I agree (or disagree) with either side in this debate. Both side have produced some interesting points. Rather I'd like to see how much hard source information is out there to perhaps lead to some work here at the SEI . This is just fact finding at this point. Finally, I'm not limiting this to Airbus aircraft only; I'm interested in any commercial aircraft accident where the cause was placed on the software. Thanks Mark S. Bell 412-268-7925 (Voice) Software Engineering Institute 412-268-5758 (Fax) Carnegie Mellon University ** These are my opinions, 4500 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh PA.,15213 not those of the SEI or CMU ** From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: 777 drogue chute on tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:23 C. Marin Faure writes (Sat Feb 10 20:55:41 1996):- > The small trailing cone the original poster observed is a stabilizer > for the long trailing wire static source we reel out of the plane to get > static pressure readings free of any air turbulence near the plane > itself. It is used on all Boeing planes that are in Flight Test. The same cone and line are clearly visible on both of the publicity photos I have of the A320 and A340 (presumably taken during flight test). Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: 777 drogue chute on tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:23 On 08 Feb 96 03:21:05 , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) said: > In viewing a recent re-run of '21st Century Jet' which highlighted > the 777 I noted that during ground trials and the initial flight the > following. At the top of the fin there was what appeared to be a > small parachute drogue on a line some 10 to 20 metrs in length. > Difficult to determine the exact size as scale on the 777 is hard to > establish. cmf> That is not a drogue chute, but a stabilizing cone for the cmf> trailing static pressure line. In flight, the line is let out to cmf> provide a static pressure source far from from the influence of cmf> turbulent air around the airplane. There was also a trailing wire cmf> that extended from the tailcone on WA001. A little more information on trailing cones may be found in the air data section of the "How to Instrument a Research Aircraft" document on my home page (address in signature), with a lot more about air data. -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: 777 drogue chute on tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:24 As I recall it's actually an airdata probe designed to get measurements that are not in the vortex of the airplane. Dave tristar500@aol.com http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011 "The Unofficial Lockheed L-1011 TriStar Page" From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hclack@pyrolab.ME.Berkeley.EDU (Herek Clack) Subject: Whys and Hows of Water Injection on Jet Engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:24 Recently while making an analogy to one of my research advisors, I mentioned that the earliest jet engines sometimes used water injection to increase thrust for takeoff. My advisor, being a chemist specializing in combustion, initially scowled at the notion. He has since consulted a couple of other chemist/ combustion types, who all have different ideas of why this was done (cooling the exhaust stream vs. increasing exhaust mass flow) and exactly how it was done (injection before combustion vs. after). Can anyone authoritatively shed some light on what the actual logic was for water injection in jets? Clearly there were fluid dynamic, thermodynamic, combustion and operational/maintenance issues that were factors, but can anyone provide the *main* considerations for the practice and the ways in which it was implemented back then? As a die-hard lurker on this list, I'll gladly take private email responses if this is a no-brainer..... Thanks, Herek hclack@pyrolab.ME.berkeley.edu From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dale Tuttle Subject: Corrosion Protection Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:25 With the multi-disciplinary nature of this group, I was hoping that someone could assist in the following: I am looking for a substitute temporary corrosion protection coating for aircraft. Bare aluminum C-135 aircraft undergoing programmed depot maintenance require a temporary coating of all steel fasteners while in dock to provide interim corrosion protection. Other technical orders require that aircraft with exposed bare metal areas may not be stored outside for more than 15 days without protective coating. The current coating contains high solvent levels. I am looking for a substitute with the following requirements 1) semi-transparent to allow for corrosion inspection through the coatings, 2) environmentally acceptable (low Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), no chromates or other hazardous air pollutants, 3) sprayable, 4) provides outdoor corrosion protection for up to one year, and 5) removable with alkaline or similar environmentally compliant solvent. evidently, there are commercial substitutes which are available. Does anyone know of any substitute that may fulfill these requirements? Thanks in Advance...E-mail is preferred. Dale Tuttle From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aptech@aptech.seanet.com (Brian Sequira) Subject: Re: FedEx HUD's (was: landing in fog) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: seanet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:25 I work on FedEx 727's and they do not have HUD's but all Southwest 737's we are putting in FD HUD's also Canadian Cargo 737 have them. From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pmagee@teleport.com (Patrick Magee) Subject: Re: FedEx HUD's (was: landing in fog) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: LeisureTronics Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:25 In article @crems.rockwell.com@cca.rockwell.com (Norman Ovens) writes: >In article , pmagee@teleport.com says... >>Which aircraft have HUD's installed? Who is the HUD manufacturer? >Flight Dynamics (Oregon,USA), Sextant Avionique (France) both make >commercial aircraft Head Up Displays. >The Canadair RJ is certified to operate with HUD to Cat IIIa minima >(Flight Dynamics) >Dassault Falcon 2000 and Saab 2000 both have programs to certify HUD >installations for manual Cat III approaches (Flight Dynamics). Not to mention the entire Southwest fleet of 737's, the new C130J, Dornier Do-328, Dash-8, and Ryan air 727's. All from Flight Dynamics. (Yes, I will admit I work for Flight Dynamics!) Website coming real soon. From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: 727 rudder References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:26 On 06 Feb 96 14:15:40 , hazlett@moon.pr.erau.edu (Kathryn Hazlett) said: K> Why does the 727 have a two piece rudder? K> What are the advantages or disadvantages of a two piece rudder? You don't have to gang so many actuators to move two smaller surfaces than one bigger one. Plus, the actuators can be smaller, run on less pressure, and so on. Also, two smaller rudders have a much lighter structure than one bigger one and the vertical tail doesn't need to be so strong because it's not resisting so much torque fro the single bigger surface. -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rob Tremblay Subject: Re: 727 rudder References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NetAccess Systems Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:27 (Ken O'Rourke) wrote: > I believe that having multiple surfaces allows you to have independent > actuators on each so that in the event of a failure you maintain > sufficient control authority to land. Takeoff with potential engine > outs and crosswind landings require the greater rudder authority and > hopefully a pilot could find a suitable airport to bring it in. > > Also, perhaps it is desirable to lock out one of the surfaces in > cruise to minimize the exposure to actuator failures resulting in a > full authority hardover. In a way you are right, Ken. The 727 has 3 hydraulic systems- a "A" system, a "B" system and a "standby" system. The upper rudder is powered by the "B" system- if the "A" system fails, the upper rudder continues to function (hopefully). The lower rudder is primarily powered by the "A" system, but can also be powered by the standby system if the "A" system fails. There are also two independant full time yaw dampners on the airplane- one on each rudder. If one fails, the other will continue to work (hopefully). If both primary hydraulic systems fail, the standby system will continue to power the rudder. If all hydraulics are lost, the x-wind limitaion is zero knots. The yaw dampners will also not function with the standby system alone, if I remember correctly. If the yaw dampners both fail at high altitude, the potential pilot/passenger can kiss his/her ass goodbye- the 727 is very unstable at almost any altitude above FL280 with no yaw dampners. The most interesting screwup with the rudder design is the fact that it was originally not powerful enough. Each rudder was consequently split in half- the most rearward tab is actually an anti-servo tab. This means that if the forward tab moves left, the rear tab moves further left. I can assure you that the rudders are now very powerful. The rudder has no capabilties in the event of a total hydraualic failure- ie. "manual reversion". Only the controls with trim tabs (elevator/ailerons) can be moved with no hydraulics. I don't know if this has actually ever happened to a 727- I've never heard of it. The 727 has tons of redunancy- many independant systems etc.- very safe. One FAA 727 actually hit a small aircraft and lost most of one of the elevators- since the other elevator is completly seperate (as you will see on some unpowered a/c- ie. one elevator up, one down) the airplane was able to land without too much problem. The light aircraft did not fair as well. Later... From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Patrick Ware Subject: Re: 727 rudder References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SmartWare Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:27 Kathryn Hazlett wrote: > > Why does the 727 have a two piece rudder? > > What are the advantages or disadvantages of a two piece rudder? Kathryn, The purpose of two rudders is twofold. First, it gives redundancy and a backup for flight controls and the hydraulic systems which control these rudders. Second, is provides a large surface area for low speed flight regimes where yaw control must be maintained during engine failure, and during cruise flight only one rudder is needed for yaw damper operations. Modern jet liners use only one rudder these days because maintenance and inspection costs of the 727 rudder system were expensive. Patrick Ware pware@whytel.com From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: Ilyushin 62 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:28 Go to your nearest Aeroflot Russian International Airlines office and ask for their booklet of color photos and specifications on Aeroflots aircraft. (You may get it in English, French, or Russian at least; maybe other languages). Of course, if there's no Aeroflot office in your city, you might get them to send one to you - they have offices in Miami, San Francisco, Chicago (I think), Washington DC, Shannon Ireland, and other places. The pages are individual heavy paper with color photographs of each aircraft (about 4" x 8") in Aeroflot livery, with basic size and performance data on the reverse side. William R. Hoscheit (billh1@gramercy.ios.com) wrote: : can anyone offer any suggestions on acquiring a schematic/technical specs : for an Ilyushin 62 or 62-M? I also could use a good color photo of one : in Aeroflot livery. I will gladly make it worth the while of all who help : me in this quest. (I am trying to create an IL-62 for Microsoft Flight : Simulator) -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 770 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A. From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gswetnam@mitre.org (George Swetnam) Subject: AIAA Free Flight Workshop: Final Program Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:30 Here is the updated program for the March 6 AIAA Workshop on ATM and Free Flight: AIAA AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE WORKSHOP FINAL SPEAKERS LIST ³ATM in the 21st Century: Where Does Free Flight fit in?² Wednesday, March 6, 1996 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Loew¹s L¹Enfant Plaza Hotel L¹Enfant Promenade, SW Washington, DC Lunch provided, included in $10 registration fee. The Air Transportation Systems Technical Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronauts will host a 1-day workshop on the interaction between Air Traffic Management and the new Free Flight concept for Air Traffic Control. Speakers from the airlines, FAA, NATCA, NASA, and other interested organizations will trade ideas on how the future ATM system should be shaped. For more information, please contact Emily Davies at (703) 264-7533, e-mail emilyd@aiaa.org Bill Cotton, United Air Lines: "AIAA's Contribution to Free Flight" The Technical Committee needs to consider its work program in light of the future Air Traffic Management environment in which free flight is the operating concept. AIAA needs to provide a unique contribution to this major developmental effort to be relevant during the next ten years. Lane Speck, FAA: "Free Flight" What is it? Where is it? Where is it going? How is it going to get there? What's in it for you? How you can help. John Pyburn, MITRE/CAASD: "The National Route Program Feasibility Analysis: First Steps Toward Free-flight" Over the past several years, an initiative known as the National Route Program has allowed greater flexibility for airspace users to select their route of flight. At intervals over this time, the criteria for eligibility for this style of flying have become less and less restrictive. Using computer modeling, we have analyzed the feasibility of this program for the FAA. It should be seen as the first steps towards free-flight. Dallas Denery, NASA Ames Research Center: " Status of ATM Research at the Ames Research Center") New concepts for air traffic management in the terminal area and on the surface, referred to as the Center Tracon Automation Systems and Surface Movement Advisor, are under development at NASA Ames in cooperative programs with the FAA. The technologies emerging from these programs provide near term operational benefits and provide the key building blocks for achieving efficient gate-to-gate operations while allowing operator flexibility in routing and scheduling in high density airspace. In this paper results of recent field tests at Denver and Dallas Ft. Worth will be reviewed. Plans for SMA tests at Atlanta will also be discussed. Initial work at Ames in developing automation aids for user preferred routing in the enroute airspace with a smooth transition to the terminal area will be covered in a separate presentation. Heinz Erzberger, NASA Ames Research Center: "Conflict Detection and Resolution in the Presence of Trajectory Prediction-Errors" Because automated conflict detection and resolution is based on imperfect prediction and control of trajectories, a trade-off exists between early resolution at lower maneuver costs, but significant false alarm costs, and late resolution with higher maneuver costs but negligible false alarm costs. The known error characteristics of trajectory prediction and control can be used to guide the design of a resolution strategy that minimizes the average cost of resolution. Such a resolution strategy is being incorporated in the design of an integrated set of Center automation tools that support user preferred routing (UPR) enroute and a smooth transition to efficient control of arrival traffic in high density airspace. Field-test proven CTAS technology, including its real time trajectory synthesis and conflict detection algorithms, provide the foundation for the design. Field tests of UPR functions will begin at the Denver Center in the summer of 1996. NASA's data-link and GPS equipped TSRV Boeing 757 will also participate in the test. John Scardina, Integrated Product Team Lead, FAA and Frank Willingham, Program Manager, MITRE/CAASD: "Maximizing Delivery of User Benefits Through Integrated ATM Functionality." This paper describes an evolutionary approach to achieve maximum flexibility and efficiency for airspace users through fully integrated Air Traffic Management system functionality. The approach provides for early benefits via quick fielding of initial increments which require only minimal integration. Then, achieving higher levels of integration with subsequent deployments via inter-domain, functional integration packages of decision support services. This approach assumes deployment of the physical infrastructure as currently planned for the en route, terminal and tower domains. Rusty Bell, System Manager: Flight Operations Technology, Delta Air Delta Air Lines Experience with a Flight Planning System to Support Greater Flexibility" Steve Brown, AOPA/RTCA Task Force 3: "General Aviation's Priorities for Free Flight" Karl Grundmann, NATCA: "NATCA's Perspective on Free Flight" What the union sees in looking at Free Flight: advantages, disadvantages, trouble spots, issues, problems, and ways to resolve them. John Ball, Lockheed Martin: "Associate Technology and Its Support of the Free Flight Concept." Associate technology is a military based technology developed under several ARPA contracts to provide decision and information support to pilots. Lockheed Martin sees this technology as a critical piece to the implementation of the Free Flight concept as it has been envisioned. I will give a brief discription of how the system pieces fit together and discuss how this technology provides user support and forms a network of cooporating associates. Jim Dieudonne, MITRE/CAASD: " Early Free Flight Evaluations -- Some Ups, Some Downs" This discussion will center around early observations of the "Free Flight Concept" based on analysis of current "unstructured route operations", simulations and laboratory "experiments", and field evaluations at the FAA's Kansas City Enroute Control Center. Some of these "early lessons learned" should help us focus future activities. George Swetnam gswetnam@mitre.org MITRE Corporation (703) 883-5352 7525 Colshire Drive McLean, VA 22102 From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:30 In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > Last year, I came across an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review on > the Airbus/Boeing competition. It was reported in the article that Boeing > claimed the B777 would shave off as much as an hour off A340's flying time > on long-haul trip. A similar claim was made by one of the netters from > Boeing in sci.aeronautics.airliners but was later disputed by a Cathay > Pacific pilot. > > Today, there is an article saying that Airbus is threatening to sue Boeing > if Boeing does not stop using this false information (that the A330/340 > can only cruise at 0.78 Mach). Airbus says that some early A340 > operators used the lower speed to increase either payload or range. > However, this sounds to me that the A330/340 must have significant > performance shortfalls. As of a year ago, a flight from Narita to Heathrow took almost an hour longer in a Virgin A-340 than the same flight on a British Airways 747-400. There's no dispute that the A-340 can cruise faster than 0.78 Mach. The problem is that the drag apparently increases significantly due to the A-340's outboard engine nacelle-pylon design, so fuel consumption goes up. The only way to reduce fuel consumption so as to be able to carry the desired payload on a very long range flight is to reduce the cruise speed, thus reducing the parasite drag of the nacelle-pylon. I believe this is the basis of the Boeing statement about the relative cruise speeds of the A-340 and the 777. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: A,B,C,D-checks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:31 pigpen@pacificnet.net writes: > Just curious as specific differences between the different types of > checks done on commercial aircraft. Well, first off there are substantial (if not exactly major) differences between the various aircraft types as to what goes on during each of these checks, or what they are even called, for that matter. That said, at one airline that I worked at, the periodic maintenance services were (from most to least frequent) for narrowbodies: Preflight Check - before every flight First Flight of the Day Check - before the First Flight of the Day Periodic Service checks (PS Check) - about every 10 flight hours A Checks - about every 30-40 flight hours (e.g. 1 every 3 days or so) B Checks - about every 100-200 flight hours (e.g. 1 every 2-3 weeks) C Checks - about every 3000 flight hours (depending on type) (e.g. about 1 per year) Heavy C Checks - about every 15000 flight hours (e.g. about 1 every three to four years). The D Check was not a standard check at this airline. The frequent checks (i.e. everything before B Check on the above list) are "check the fluid levels"-"check the tire pressure"-"fill the potable water" kind of checks - i.e. nothing that couldn't be done at a majority of airports. B Checks had more inspections performed, and generally take the aircraft out of service for a day or so. These are generally done at a smaller number of airports. C Checks are where major items are inspected and replaced, and take the aircraft out of service for about 5 days or so. Overhaul and engineering modifications to aircraft are also performed here (i.e. approved changes to the aircraft configuration - not just topping off/replacing fluids or inspections). Depending on the aircraft, a flight test must occur after a "C" check, which performs specific routine and non-routine in-flight tests to ensure that systems operate (e.g. ensure cabin pressure relief valves work as operated, ensure that the emergency masks drop from overhead when the cabin pressure is decreased, fuel dumping, etc.) Aircraft painting may also happen here as needed. This check usually only occurs at one or maybe two places for a given airframe in an airline's system. Heavy Cs are where major overhaul work is performed, such as control surface refurbishing, major structural modifications. These can take from 4 to 6 weeks to accomplish. Now then, the above checks are only a skeleton. Many of the newer aircraft are coming out with different kinds of checks, such as Major Base Visits rather than C Checks. Also, certain aircraft (such as widebodies) may have more thorough C checks, without having Heavy Cs. Finally, each airline's maintenance program is individually approved by the FAA (based on the airframe manufacturers recommendations), so significant differences can and do occur between different airline's maintenance program layout (although they are all approved to meet a minimum level). This is all of my recollection from a couple of years ago, and only reflects one person at one airline's perspective (I was an avionics engineer, so some of the more structures / hydraulics kinds of things were not my area of specialty). Any errors in the above are mine. 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 Feb 16 04:33:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.M.Haynes@aeromech.salford.ac.uk (Duncan Haynes) Subject: Re: Ilyushin Il-76 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Salford Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:31 In article , Paul Dobson wrote: >Would somebody kindly let me know where I can get performance >data for the Ilyushin Il-76. > >Thanks in advance for your help. > >Regards, Paul Dobson Try Jane's book of All The World's Aircraft It should be in your local library.... From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lorck@sn.no (Petter Lorck) Subject: Re: FMS capability (was: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong) References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SN Internett Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:32 ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) wrote: >Yes, assuming the computer had the information about terrain >available. However, because of the (correctly) stringent nature of >certification rules, the FMS computers on board most equipped aircraft >have an upper limit of 1Mword of memory or less (i.e. 2MB), due to the >need to show that the electronics industry has experience with the >components to have REAL, demonstrated MTBF figures. > Are you sure about that number (2MB)? I seem to recall that the capacity of the UNS 1B FMS is given at 5MB. But of course, now that I try to find that number in the operators manual I can't find it. Anyway, this is what is listed in the manual : The data base provides the FMS with information on over 100,000 waypoints, navaids, airports and over 12,000 SIDs, STARs and Approaches. Additionally, the data base has the capability to store up to 200 pilot defined routes utilizing up to 3000 waypoints. Later, dudes ! Petter. From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust rever References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:32 A related question: Is it true that Mexicana has disconnected their squat switches, in order to be able to come down fast? From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:33 In article , DHQM37A@prodigy.com (Jerry Schaefer) wrote: > I would presume that any good pilot, and further presume that the pilot > of a commerical grade jet would automatically and instinctly turn to the > RIGHT as would the oncoming airplane. This is what is taught to pilots. You would hope this would be the case, but studies have shown that most pilots' IMMEDIATE instinctive reaction is to turn toward the window next to them. This would apply in a near panic situation. Given at least a couple of seconds to let training take over, the initial instinctive reation would in most cases be overruled by the training which says bank right. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:33 Francis JAMBON Sat Feb 10 20:54:14 1996, writes:- > I don't know if the "side stick priority logic" has been changed but I > have found these informations from a rather old FCOM : > >A320 Flight Crew Operating Manual - FLIGHT CONTROLS - CONTROLS AND INDICATORS >1.27.40 - P 3 - REV 16 - SEQ 002 - "For training only" and transcribes that page of text. I referred to a later copy of the FCOM to check. The whole manual that I referred to was at REV 19, and the page that Francis quotes is at REV 18 in that version. The text is identical except for two lines:- If a takeover push button is pressed for more than 40 seconds the system will latch, ... ^^ (changed from "30 seconds"), and:- However, at any time, a deactivated stick can be reactivated by momentarily pressing the takeover push button on either stick. ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (changed from "... pressing its takeover pushbutton.") The effect of the first change is obvious. The second one is puzzling me. It would seem fairly sensible that a crew member whose *own* stick was deactivated should be able to reactivate it by pressing its *own* takeover pushbutton, and the REV 16 text states this clearly. However, the REV 18 text implies that, having deactivated FO's stick and taken control, the Captain would reactivate FO's stick by a subsequent action on the *Captain's* takeover pushbutton (or vice versa, reversing the roles of the two crew members). Questions:- 1. Do these changes mean that the logic has been modified, or were they made because the manual was originally incorrect compared to the existing logic? 2. Have I understood the second modified statement correctly, or is this another example of the practical application of the "fuzzy logic" for which the FCOM is famous? In answer to C. Marin Faure's original question, I am not aware of any change to the "left-plus-right-equals-nothing formula", nor of any alteration to the symmetry of the sidestick logic. There are no Operations Engineering Bulletins (OEB) relating to the sidesticks in my copy of the FCOM. > Don't ask me where I've found the FCOM. Ditto! :-) Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Fixing airplane after minor crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:34 Recently, there have been 2 "accidents" where a plane was salvageable but had some non-trivial damage. (Canadian DC-10 at Vancouver, Tower Air 747 at JFK). Since neither of these planes could move on their own (even less take-off and land), I am wondering how repairs woudl be effected and by whom ? In the case of CP, since it has a maintenance facility at Vancouver, I *assume* that CP moved the plane to a hangar. Just how would a plane be towed without a nose gear ? Would an airline the size of CP have enough maintenance expertise to fix such a damaged DC-10 ? Or would Douglass employees be flown to do the repair work ? Is a total airplane "rebuild" required , or is fixing just the front part with a good check of the rest sufficient ? How long would such damage typically take to repair before the plane is back in the air on commercial service ? What happens when an airline gets such a damage in an airport where maintenance facilities are not available ? From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fixing airplane after minor crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:34 >Recently, there have been 2 "accidents" where a plane was salvageable but >had some non-trivial damage. (Canadian DC-10 at Vancouver, Tower Air 747 >at JFK). The Tower Air 747, at least, was written off. American similarly wrote off two DC-10s that had seemingly minor incidents at DFW. In each of these cases, the aircraft were old and just not worth the cost to repair. >How long would such damage typically take to repair before the plane is >back in the air on commercial service ? Boeing's AOG (Aircraft On Ground) has had some fairly remarkable feats which have been well-chronicled. (I'm sure other manufacturers have accomplished similar feats, I just haven't read about them.) Judging by some of these feats, I would be surprised if they could have gotten the Tower Air 747 back in the air within several days, assuming they could track down all the parts. >What happens when an airline gets such a damage in an airport where >maintenance facilities are not available ? One of the more remarkable Boeing AOG efforts was an Air France 747 freighter which belly flopped somewhere in India. The aircraft was immobile, so Boeing rebuilt it on the spot, essentially rebuilding the entire lower fuselage of the aircraft. This took several months, and I believe they had to build a tent over the whole operating, and even then work at night, because of the intense heat. In other words, if the aircraft can't move, they'll put the facilities there if they have to. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ? for Airbus bashers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:35 In article bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) writes: >I'm surprised at the Airbus bashing that's going on here. My airline >ordered its first Airbuses (A300-600R) several years ago and I've heard >nothing but praise. It's our MD-11s that get bashed. I'd like to hear >some opinions from those who work alongside the A300-600R and how it >compares to the other jets. (Please post your responses). I really don't see that much Airbus-bashing here. Rather, I have recently seen threads that started with: - Individuals reading the Wall Street Journal and pass along its comments about the A3X0 being more safe than Boeing aircraft by virtue of protections--an unsubstantiated assumption. - Individuals claiming that Boeing has a "privileged child" status in the media, by virtue of reporters never listing the country of manufacture. - Individuals (JF) claiming that non-existent miracle protections are present on Airbus aircraft, and who try to advance that technology without really understanding what it's all about--the WORST possible advocate for AI's technological solutions. - Individuals claiming that the 777 is less safe by virtue of a simpler FCS. - Individuals claiming that the 777's cockpit design is less safe and archaic. There seems to be a lot of attitude coming from certain European posters. All responses, have been just that: reactionary, and usually from people who know a bit more than the original poster. -- 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 Feb 16 04:33:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: An unscientific survey (Airbus vs Boeing) [Long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:36 In article donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) writes: >Sorry to burst your bubble, but your description of what happens on a >Boeing airplane when a pilot pushes the throttle to the "stops" is >incorrect. Recent Boeing airplanes (since the 757/767) have electronic >engine controllers (EEC) that prevent overboosting the engines. Unless >the EEC fails, pushing the power lever to the forward stop will provide >the maximum certificated power level for the particular phase of flight. >Overboosting is not an option. I know that's the case on the 757/767, but it was my understanding that there's an "overboost" detent on the 777 which can be achieved by the application of of some muscle. Anyone know for sure? -- 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 Feb 16 04:33:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:36 In article , I wrote: >Last year, I came across an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review on >the Airbus/Boeing competition. It was reported in the article that Boeing >claimed the B777 would shave off as much as an hour off A340's flying time >on long-haul trip. A similar claim was made by one of the netters from >Boeing in sci.aeronautics.airliners but was later disputed by a Cathay >Pacific pilot. > I would like to make a corretion of the above statement. The Boeing person that I was referring to in the previous post did not make the "claim". He was only stating what he was told by a Captain of an airline which operated the A330. And what he was told was the A330 was speed limited due to buffetting. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Fri Feb 16 04:33:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: Re: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The American University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 96 04:33:36 In article Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) writes: >Today, there is an article saying that Airbus is threatening to sue Boeing >if Boeing does not stop using this false information (that the A330/340 >can only cruise at 0.78 Mach). This makes no sense to me -- are airplane performance numbers that hard to come by? I'm sure Boeing didn't just dream this up -- if an A330/A340 can cruise at greater than 0.78 Mach, you'd think the whole world would know about it, and Boeing wouldn't make itself look stupid by advertising something to the contrary. From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bay@daacdev1.stx.com (John Bay) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Reply-To: bay@daacdev1.stx.com Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:24 Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : News item in the newspaper today (Feb 16) said that the flight : recorder from the Alas/Birgenair 757 had been located on the seabed : 12 miles away from the Dominican Republic. They can now get on with : the business of recovery via robot submarine. Would it be possible to make a flight recorder that would transmit all its stored data upon request, thereby eliminating the necessity to physically recover the box? -- John G. Bay Hughes STX, 7701 Greenbelt Rd., Suite 400, Greenbelt, MD 20770 bay@daacdev1.stx.com http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/ From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: airnig@gmtnet.co.uk (N.Smith) Subject: WWW Confidential Tech Reporting Site Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BTnet, BT Public Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:24 Hi there. Can I just draw your attention to my web site that has been running for several months and offers a confidential reporting system for Commercial Aviation employees wishing to warn others about human factors/atc/cabin crew/technical problems/etc. they have experienced. Any further reports are always welcome and can be sent from the page or to airnig@gmtnet.co.uk http://www.gmtnet.co.uk/airnig/ Many thanks and safe flying. Nig . From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wingedhoof@aol.com (Wingedhoof) Subject: Re: Whys and Hows of Water Injection on Jet Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wingedhoof@aol.com (Wingedhoof) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:24 Herek asks: >Can anyone authoritatively shed some light on what the actual >logic was for water injection in jets? Clearly there were >fluid dynamic, thermodynamic, combustion and operational/maintenance >issues that were factors, but can anyone provide the *main* >considerations for the practice and the ways in which it was >implemented back then? >From PWA OI 200, "The Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine and its Operation" published by Pratt & Whitney: The sensitivity of gas turbine engines to compressor inlet temperature results in appreciable loss of the thrust (or power, in the case of a turboprop) which is available for takeoff on a hot day. It is frequently necessary, therefore, to provide some means of thrust augmentation for nonafterburning engines during takeoff on warm or hot days. This is also the case on at least one afterburning engine. Ten to thirty percent additional thrust (power) can be gained by injecting water into the engine, either at the compressor air inlet or at some other point, such as the diffuser case. In a piston engine, during power augmentation by means of water injection, the water acts primarily as a detonation suppressor and a cylinder charge coolant. Induction air cooling is secondary. Higher takeoff horsepower results chiefly because when water is added, the engine can operate at the fuel/air ratio that will produce "best power." Sometimes a higher manifold pressure may be obtained than would otherwise be possible without experiencing detonation. Jet engines, however, have no detonation difficulties. When water is added, thrust or power augmentation is obtained principally by cooling the air entering the engine, by means of vaporization of the water introduced into the airstream. Cooling the air has the effect of reducing the compressor inlet temperature. The reduction in temperature increases the air density and the mass airflow. More and cooler air to the burners permit more fuel to be burned before limiting turbine inlet temperatures are reached, which, in turn, means more thrust. Although methyl or ethyl alcohol (or a mixture of one or both of these and water) has been used in the past for injection to augment jet engine thrust, water has a higher heat of evaporation, and is therefore the only liquid generally used for thrust augmentation today. The effect upon engine thrust depends upon the rate of water flow into the engine. Water injection is usually accomplished by spraying water into the engine at the compressor air inlet or directly into the diffuser section, in the case of axial flow compressor engines. Occasionally, a combination of both methods is used. When the injection system permits a pilot to select manually either a combination of both compressor and diffuser injected water or diffuser water alone, the latter may be used at lower ambient temperatures than is permissible when water is introduced into the compressor, because the problem of possible ice formation at the front end of the engine is eliminated. In addition to this, diffuser case injection, although less efficient, also has the advantage of requiring less change in the basic engine design when a water injection feature is added, and avoids the problem of deposits forming on the compressor blades. James Beaver Pratt & Whitney From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Payne Subject: Re: Whys and Hows of Water Injection on Jet Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Random Access INC. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:25 Hi, I'll have to dig up my old KC-135A manuals but I believe they said it increased the density of the intake air. The water was injected before combustion and increased thrust by about 20%. We used just over 5000 lbs of water in 90 seconds or so. Hope this helps some. John in Alpharetta, GA From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Vickers Viscounts in the US? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:25 Can anyone help me compile a list of Vickers Viscounts still in existence in the US? I recently observed 5 of them in storage at Tucson International Airport, and there is a sixth on display at the nearby Pima Air Museum. From what I understand the Mid Atlantic Air Museum also keeps one on the east coast in flying condition. Any others lingering anywhere else in the US? Thanks a lot, Steve From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:25 There have been recent newsreports about Airbus trying to launch a competitor to the 747 at a cost of up to some $14 billion (figure from a French govt minister, reported in Feb 12 issue of AvWeek). Stated reason is that Airbus is getting beaten in megadeals because Boeing has a 747 and Airbus doesn't. Weird thing about this, however, is that the recent megadeals have little to do with the 747, but are rather centered on the 777, for which Airbus has two competitors in the A330/A340. There's no question that Boeing makes a lot of its money from the 747, but that doesn't change the fact that the recent megadeals have little to do with the 747. Pointing at the 747 as the reason for Airbus's recent troubles is disingenuous at best---the real problem is that the 777 is giving the A330/340 a tough time. The advantage of a A3XX program with associated subsidies ("launch aid"), is that it would allow Airbus to avoid dealing with the recent weakness of the A330/40 program, and also lessen the competitive pressures of Boeing and Douglas's race to reduce costs, something that Airbus cannot easily immitate. Boeing estimates the cost of a 747-500/600 program at $2 billion, which would allow them to offer the new models at low, low prices if they needed to, while recouping the cost of a new wing that could then be used for other models. I sincerely doubt that Airbus can justify the A3XX program on economic grounds. It would no doubt hurt Boeing, but as for paying its own way, the existence of a cheap alternative would make it very difficult to cover development costs. It's also hard to justify even from a industrial policy viewpoint. Even if you accept that Europe "must" have the capability to build transport aircraft, that's been achieved with the A330/340 program. To date there's only one military application of the 747, which is as Air Force 1 and the airborne command posts. $14 billion is a lot of money to spend on an even bigger airplane for Jacques Chirac to fly. (Aside: where would Airbus build such a thing? Could it fit in the Toulouse facility? If this thing goes forward, watch for one hell of a fight over the issue of who gets final assembly of Europe's largest plane. Think the French (already insecure about German power) could stand to see the Germans do it, or might the Brits claim that it was their turn to do a final assembly? Oh, the political problems that this would cause would be classic, since the final assembly site would then be thought of as "the" Airbus site. And a lot more stuff would have to be built on site. How do you transport gigantic wings from England, anyway? I wouldn't be surprised that any such site might straddle the France-Germany border, giving them both boasting rights). The problem, of course, it that it's unclear whether even the EU govts can afford the costs of the A3XX program, given their fiscal problems. Hence, presumably, the frantic search for other outfits willing to invest capital in the project (Russians, Chinese, you name it). Airbus's own figure of $8 billion suggests that the obvious strategy of low-balling the program costs (taking lessons from NASA, I guess). Once you've spent $8 billion, of course, who would cavil at spending another $6 billion to finish the program? RNA From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:26 In article , JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) writes: > This makes no sense to me -- are airplane performance numbers that hard > to come by? I'm sure Boeing didn't just dream this up -- if an A330/A340 > can cruise at greater than 0.78 Mach, you'd think the whole world would > know about it, and Boeing wouldn't make itself look stupid by > advertising something to the contrary. Unfortunatly, Boeing *may* have said that, but in a context which was not properly interpreted by the reporting media (magazine, newspaper etc). For instance, Boeing *may* have been reporting that a certain airline, under certain circumstances, cannot operate a certain aircraft above a certain speed and this was misreported as Boeing stating that Airbus planes cannot exceed such a speed. Or Boeing may have made a mistake in wording their statement so that it was not clear that it applied to a specific condition and made it look like Boeing was making a generalisation. Or, if Boeing is like many large computer makers (minis-mainframes of the 80s), some technical guy may have made a statement to a marketing guy and the marketing guy only say what was interesting to him and made the generalisation that Airbus cannot exceed a certain speed and did not understand under what circumstances such a limit would be imposed. From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:26 In article , JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) writes: > This makes no sense to me -- are airplane performance numbers that hard > to come by? I'm sure Boeing didn't just dream this up -- if an A330/A340 > can cruise at greater than 0.78 Mach, you'd think the whole world would > know about it, and Boeing wouldn't make itself look stupid by > advertising something to the contrary. Well ... I heard Airbus conducted a survey among airlines using A340. The conclusion is that the 340 is used at Mach 0.82 in cruise. Of course this is Airbus info. At least as good as Boeing info though ... JF -- Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr) Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile TOULOUSE, FRANCE From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") Subject: Re: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compulink Information eXchange Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:26 Ref faurecm@halcyon.com posting 3952 Nearly right, but not quite!. The A340 cruises at 0.82M, which is slower than the 747 at 0.86M. The outboard wing/pylon junction did give some minor problems during flight test, but this was a light buffet at speeds above cruising speed, not drag at cruise speed. The problem was thought to be fixed, but apparently it reappeared on ONE Virgin aircraft - hence a TEMPORARY restriction in cruise speed for that airline only. This seems to have given rise to the rumour that the A340 is limited to 0.78M, which is not true - hence AI's umbrage. cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes Subject: Re: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: iiNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:27 H Andrew Chuang wrote: > > In article , I wrote: > > >Last year, I came across an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review on > >the Airbus/Boeing competition. It was reported in the article that Boeing > >claimed the B777 would shave off as much as an hour off A340's flying time > >on long-haul trip. A similar claim was made by one of the netters from > >Boeing in sci.aeronautics.airliners but was later disputed by a Cathay > >Pacific pilot. > > I would like to make a corretion of the above statement. The Boeing > person that I was referring to in the previous post did not make the > "claim". He was only stating what he was told by a Captain of an airline > which operated the A330. And what he was told was the A330 was speed > limited due to buffetting. > > -- > H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) We would appear to be going over old ground here. As previously stated when referring to our operation at Cathay, we routinely operate our A340's on ULH services to Europe and North America at speeds of M0.82 to M0.835. The actual value depending on the factors applicable to all heavy jets: weight, head/tail-wind component, altitude assigned etc. If required, we will cruise at M0.84, though this is rarely called for and does increase fuel consumption with the supercritical wing section. Fact, not fiction ... NO buffeting. The Boeing person you were referring to did NOT say that the airline was 'operating' the A330. They were scheduled to take delivery at some unspecified future date ... it was essentially crewroom talk (involving B747-400 fleet captains) based on unsubstantiated rumour. No more ... This newsgroup does seem to have had a healthy amount of debate on the Airbus/Boeing subject! As aircrew flying both the A330/A340 in a mixed fleet flying (MFF) operation, I have been amused at some of the comments I have read in the past few months regarding the aircraft I fly (I can't comment on the A319/320/321 not having flown the airframes). Suffice to say, I personally have a healthy respect for both Airbus and Boeing. They approach the design philosophy issue from different angles, but that certainly doesn't make one better than the other. They both have their place in airline inventories. Pilots by nature will have their personal preferences meaning they lean toward one operating philosophy more than another. In my military days, I flew the F/A-18 for a number of years which used FBW in a similar fashion to the Boeing 777 design (feedbacks etc.), which incidentally Cathay have also bought. However, after having operated the new Airbus combo for the past 17 months, I have no problem with the lack of feadback through the side-stick, or the autothrottle system (prior to conversion I had my concerns): it is intuitive and a pleasure to use. Having said that, it requires an average level of airmanship and training to ensure the aircraft is operated safely in the manner in which it was designed (again - no different to Boeing's aircraft). I despair at some of the accident summaries I have read involving both Boeing and Airbus aircraft and wonder at how the crews found themselves in the situations which led to the tragic accidents we have seen. So much of it comes back to training and cockpit discipline ... and this seems to be where the less sophisticated operators come unstuck. The A330/A340 combination are a pleasure to operate and their operating costs are undoubtedly amongst the lowest around (if not THE lowest), especially when using a MFF operating policy to crew the fleet. As an aside, the pilots I personally know who have completed the B777 conversion and await delivery of our first aircraft in May (delivery was set back a few months due to the Boeing strike) tell me it will cruise somewhere between 0.825 to 0.84 in normal operation. I have no idea how that equates to an hour on long haul services to Europe (which the A's can't do anyway from Hong Kong). As it stands now, on a 15 hour flight to Europe, the difference between a 747-400 and an A340-200 flying a similar route seems to pan out at around 30 - 35 minutes ... I know because we brief side by side in our airline despatch and have frequently checked the -400 flight plans. The figures are easy to cross-check ... let's be generous and give the 747-400 an average cruising Mach of .855 cruising at FL350 @ ISA all the way (unrealistic, but the same criteria apply to both aircraft). From my trusty Jeppeson CR2 'prayer wheel', his TAS will be about 491 Kts. For the A340 with an average Mach of .825 same conditions, TAS will be around 475 Kts. In still air, this amounts to a 16 Knot difference in speed. Extrapolate this out for 15 hours and you have 240 Nm difference, which at the slower TAS of 475 Knots amounts to just over 30 minutes. In practice, the time is usually slightly longer, as the A340 optimum altitude is higher than the -400s for most of the route, so it is actually flying in a colder atmosphere, hence slightly slower comparative TAS ... the price you pay for better economics. A lot more is being made of this Airbus/Boeing thing than need be. The large majority of the guys I know who flew the -400 in Cathay and have converted to the A330/340 combo, are very comfortable with the aircraft. As you would expect, there are differences in both systems which render one better than the other in certain areas, but as an overall combination, the A330/340 are very good aircraft and a pleasure to operate ... so too is Boeing's -400 and the B777 will no doubt mature to be a good aircraft ... horses for courses! Regards, Rick Hughes From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dennis L. Murphy" Subject: Re: Fixing airplane after minor crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 968 5800 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:27 Didn't Air France put one into the bay in Tahiti and Boeing went in and got the aircraft out. They then ferried the aircraft back to the US for refurbishment (at major $$$ ?) From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: DJEC81A@prodigy.com (Scott Macgregor) Subject: Re: Fixing airplane after minor crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:27 An example:In 1965, a Grumman Gulfstream blew a nosewheel tire in S. Carolina. It was disassembled, and transported to Long Island N.Y. by truck. At a facillity called "Aerotrades" we repaired the damage, upgraded the flight electronics, and flight tested the aircraft. All electronic, hydrolic, and mechanical systems were evaluated. Both props had been damaged, therefore, both engins were sent back to Rolles Royce and rebuilt. All personell that participated in the rebuilding of this airplane flew in the checkout ride. From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Fixing airplane after minor crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:27 In article , mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) wrote: >How long would such damage typically take to repair before the plane is >back in the air on commercial service ? It can vary. In 1991 (or was it late 1990), an almost brand-new UA 747-400 made a partial gear-up landing at LAX (only the outer mains would extend). Thanks to some extremely excellent airplane handling by the captain (he kept the nose off the ground until about 10 knots - I've seen a video of it), damage was limited to the nose gear doors (which did open) and some skin panels. The plane was back in service five days later. >What happens when an airline gets such a damage in an airport where >maintenance facilities are not available ? Almost every airport has some sort of maintenance facility. And I assume we (United) is typical in having someone to call on for emergency maintenance at every airport we serve. Sometimes that is a local FBO (fixed base operator) and sometimes it is another airline. When needed, airline contract with other carriers to do maintenance work. A few months ago, Virgin had a plane lose an engine shortly after take-off from San Francisco. I assume we did the work on the plane as it spent a few days at our line maintenance facility at SFO. I've also seen a VASP MD-11 and a Ryan International 727 (in U.S. Postal Service colors) at our base for repairs. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. Note for rec.gambling groups - I'm posting from Interserve, not Interserv. From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Patrick Ware Subject: Re: FedEx HUD's (was: landing in fog) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SmartWare Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:28 Brian Sequira wrote: > > I work on FedEx 727's and they do not have HUD's but all Southwest > 737's we are putting in FD HUD's also Canadian Cargo 737 have them. Brian, Only the -300 and -500 aircraft at SWA will be converted to HUD systems. The -200 series aircraft will not have them installed. The -700 aircraft will have them from the factory when delivery starts in Oct 1997. pware@whytel.com From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: wanttaja@chinook.halcyon.com (Ronald James Wanttaja) Subject: An Accelerometer in Paradise Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:28 Recently, I completed some business travel to a remote location. For my return trip, I was to transport two Environmental Data Recorders (EDRs). These contain three accelerometers, an electric thermometer and hygrometer, and 1 Meg of memory for storing the collected data. It's a surprisingly small device, about 3/4ths the size of a thick paperback novel. My trip back included flying on a commuterliner as well as on a common twin-engine jet airliner. Like any engineer, I couldn't resist the temptation: I activated the EDRs for the trip home. The following posting is a report of the results. I carried two EDRs in my checked suitcase, a large hard-sided older model American Tourister. One was in a metal foam-lined case specifically designed for the job; the other was placed between layers of clothing (isolated from the sides of the suitcase). I'm going to use the results of the loose EDR as more representative of ordinary belongings inside the suitcase. Axial orientation was as follows: Imagine the suitcase lying flat. The EDR Y-Axis was parallel to the hinge line of the suitcase, and the X axis was parallel to the ground from the back to the front of the suitcase. The Z-Axis was "up" in this orientation, in the direction the top would open. Note the axial directions change while the suitcase is carried: The Y axis is in the direction of travel, the X axis is "up", and the Z axis points to the side. The EDR stored the 70 highest impacts. The threshold was set to 1G, but enough events occured to fill the buffer, at which point the lower impacts were rewritten by the higher. The EDR was activated at 7:03 AM. A near-continuous series of 23 shocks is recorded from 07:13:04 to 07:13:32. X axis predominated, ranging from 1.85 to 3.75 Gs. During this period, the suitcase was being towed on its wheels over a rough asphalt parking lot. In this attitude, X axis was vertical. Frequency was approximately 25 Hz. 40 seconds after the cessation of the series, a single impact was detected, with the Z axis predominating (2.24Gs Z, 1.85Gs X, 1.05Y). At this time, I had opened the car trunk and hoisted the suitcase inside. I loaded it flat, hence the primary shock in the Z axis. After completing some other business, I arrived at the airport at 09:09. Here, another series of X-axis shocks occur as I tow the bag into the terminal. These are lower than the first set; the airport sidewalks were smoother than the earlier parking lot. Nothing occured until about ten minutes prior to departure of the small turboprop commuterliner. Then seven shocks with different axes predominating, maximum 5.6G... obviously when the baggage was being loaded onto the aircraft. No shocks are recorded from that time until the plane arrived at the hub airport... this arrival time was approximately 90 minutes prior to departure of the major carrier for the next leg. Twenty shocks occur in this period, with 14 of them over one five-minute period (probably transhipment from one baggage carrier to another). Various axes, maximum 5.26Gs, most in the 2-3G range. I suspect the last shock of this series (~45 min prior to scheduled departure) was the suitcase being loaded on the aircraft, as no shocks were recorded until after takeoff. It gets interesting about a half-hour after the plane got airborne. Three shocks, a minute or so apart, with maximum values of 10.1, 9.13, and 5.429Gs! I recall nothing but ordinary turbulence in that period. Luggage shifting in the bay, I suspect. The 10.1 G one had two peaks, dropping slightly between in about 0.1 seconds. Other than that... two ~3.5G hits during descent (undoubtedly baggage shifting again) and a 6.167G impact at landing (rough landing). There didn't seem to be any designation-airport baggage-handling events, just another Z-axis hit when I dropped the suitcase into the trunk of my own car. For the entire travel period, the maximum G level was: X = 6.167 Y = 6.889 Z = 10.10 These sound high, but remember, most of them are short-lived events with not much energy in them. It should be noted that I carried a china teapot in the same suitcase as the EDR (wrapped in bubble wrap); it arrived unbroken. Ron Wanttaja wanttaja@halcyon.com From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust rever References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:29 >lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) >A related question: Is it true that Mexicana has disconnected their squat >switches, in order to be able to come down fast? This seems a bit strange. If the squat switch is activated you're already down! Note that DC-10's/MD-11/DC-9 family do not have main gear switches. Functions related to main gear on ground (such as autobrakes and spoilers) use a signal telling them that the wheels have spun up. This has caused some problems with Douglas aircraft if an 'incident' occur during takeoff in the period between nose gear up (avionics see an in-air condition) and main gear off (aircraft actually in-air). There are some interesting legal consequences of the related to deciding if the aircraft was really on the ground or was really in the air. Brian From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: CNS/ATM Technology impact on airline operations 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 Feb 96 23:00:29 Current aircraft are selected basically on the basis on aircraft performance, range, and seat capacity. There is another factor which is coming into play now, but getting very little publicity. If an aircraft manufacturer developed a new wing which could achieve a 1.5% reduction in fuel burn, then the world would beat a path to their door. As technology has made aircraft more and more efficient; one factor is emerging which is constraining the efficient operation of aircraft. That factor is the outdated Air Traffic Management (ATM)system and its procedures. The increase in air traffic, coupled with these constraints are causing the airlines to operate route structures and altitudes which cost them money. Improvements to the Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance (CNS) must occur to remove these constraints. Clearly, something must be done about this. The first step has been taken in areas of procedural control with the implementation of FANS 1/A (Future Air Navigation System). I have posted other materiel with more information, but a detailed discussion of FANS is not the intent of this posting. The Boeing fleet of 747-400s is currently fitted, with the 777 and 757/777 not far behind. Douglas Aircraft Company will also have FANS capable aircraft in 1997. Airbus is also planning a FANS A package which will have equivalent capability. There has been substantial cooperation between the aircraft manufacturers in this area. They all have an interest in presenting a common interface to the Ground ATC. The RTCA Free Flight Task Force 3 report contains a set of recommendations which would remove constraints in the domestic airspace. Has there been opposition? Yes, primarily from some parts of industry which council waiting until the ICAO endorsed Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN)is on line. Airlines have decided not to wait until that network is ready. What is the key? Cooperation between airlines, airframe manufacturers, network service providers, and the States. CNS improvements can be expensive, and airlines are loath to invest without committed benefits schedules. The purpose of this post is to raise awareness. You will see more and more about CNS/ATM in the months to come. We as an industry need to be prepared for it. David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not my employer's From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etech@deltanet.com Subject: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:29 I've seen a number of MD-11 freighters that seem to have all eight passenger doors and metal window plugs. I get the impression that the operators of these aircraft may have wanted something that could be relatively easily converted to passenger use if the cargo market didn't pan out. What about the 747-400F, on the other hand? I've seen a number of these as well, and I'm puzzled about Boeing's decision to use the standard -100 and -200 upper deck instead of the stretched upper deck used in the passenger variant. I understand that the SUD probably wouldn't be of much use in cargo operations. But if a 747-400F operator decided that the cargo market was not worth pursuing and wanted to convert their freighters to a passenger configuration, wouldn't putting in the SUD be an expensive retrofit? == etech@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463 etech@netcom.com --------------------- Prodigy: GCXJ11A http://www.deltanet.com/users/etech From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: FMS capability (was: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong) 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 Feb 96 23:00:30 ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) wrote: >Yes, assuming the computer had the information about terrain >available. However, because of the (correctly) stringent nature of >certification rules, the FMS computers on board most equipped aircraft >have an upper limit of 1Mword of memory or less (i.e. 2MB), due to the >need to show that the electronics industry has experience with the >components to have REAL, demonstrated MTBF figures. > The constraint on the Navigation Data Base memory size is not due to certification. It is due to the technology of the times. The new 757/767 FMCS upgrade will have 16 MBytes for NDBs...simply because now it is affordable to do that. The 777 has a greater than 1MByte limit, but the number escapes me now. Certification is the issue though it is not due to size. It is due to the criticality of the function. A complete safety analysis would need to be done on this function, but if a terrain display based on an NDB update was to be used as the primary means for avoidance of Controlled Flight Into Terrain, then the criticiality of the function may be higher than most FMC computers are certified to. In this configuration, I would presume to leave the GPWS in as the "belt and suspenders" function due to the consequences of the failure. The criticality of the function would affect the hardware (reliability), software (integrity via DO178B), and the DATA. The data would be the tough part. Currently, there is a 28 day cycle for update of navigation data. This might not be considered adequate. So, one might say, data link the stuff up. Well, current data link systems are also not certified for the reliability or integrity of a function this size. So, after saying all of this negative things; let me close by saying that CFIT is a serious problem. Terrain display coupled with GPWS will help flight crews avoid these accidents by providing them information. However, there are no easy solutions, implementation of this function will be a significant systems engineering task. If any company tells you otherwise, hold on to your wallet. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not my employer's From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: FMS capability (was: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong) References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:30 lorck@sn.no (Petter Lorck) writes: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) wrote: >Yes, assuming the computer had the information about terrain >available. However, because of the (correctly) stringent nature of >certification rules, the FMS computers on board most equipped aircraft >have an upper limit of 1Mword of memory or less (i.e. 2MB), due to the >need to show that the electronics industry has experience with the >components to have REAL, demonstrated MTBF figures. Are you sure about that number (2MB)? I seem to recall that the capacity of the UNS 1B FMS is given at 5MB. But of course, now that I try to find that number in the operators manual I can't find it. Anyway, this is what is listed in the manual : The data base provides the FMS with information on over 100,000 waypoints, navaids, airports and over 12,000 SIDs, STARs and Approaches. Additionally, the data base has the capability to store up to 200 pilot defined routes utilizing up to 3000 waypoints. ==== I'm fairly certain about the current capability of 1Mword, but am unsure about the exact size of a word in a typical FMS implementation (I'm pretty certain that they are using 16-bit words.) Note that this would be Boeing/McDonnell Douglas FMS capabilities. (The UNSunit may have a greater memory capability, due to the more recent architecture of it's internals.) In any case, the FMS does not have terrain data available to it, and the current avionics industry development is leaning more toward giving the GPWS a terrain data base, and to leave the FMS alone... ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: FDR/CVR recovery aids References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:30 Can't answer all of these questions, but: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes: > The recorders squwak, I know, to help in their recovery. > With just sonar ping, or RF too? It's an ultrasonic periodic pinging. No RF. The actual units are called underwater locator beacons (ULBs), and are about the size of a small flashlight. They are bolted onto the front of the FDR/CVR casing, and are battery powered. 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 Feb 27 23:00:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: DJEC81A@prodigy.com (Scott Macgregor) Subject: Re: 757 jitter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:31 Jerome, Doesn't it make sense that riding in the rear of a plane will magnify the yaw motions of the plane? Try sitting in the cockpit of the same airplane. No yaw sensations there! What are you trying to say? From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: 757 jitter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:31 In article Jerome Dawson, jeromed@goodnet.com writes: >>> Has anyone noticed that if you sit aft of the wings in a 757, when the >>> aircraft makes a maneuver, there is a slight "jitter" from side to >>> side? It doesn't happen on 737s, nor 747s. I recently flew in a Delta 757 and sat in a bulkhead seat just in front of the engine nacelles. During some clear air turbulence (mountain waves?) I felt a definite side to side shimmy with a frequency of perhaps 1-2 Hz. Since I was near the wing, I doubt this was due only to attitude excursions. Could it be that some dutch roll was causing slight side to side translations of the aircraft? From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU (Pablo Wangermann) Subject: Re: B-757 Puerto Plata Accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Laboratory for Control and Automation Princeton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:31 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >>Does anyone know if the 757 involved here uses the same >>engine/reverser system that Lauda Air used on that 767 that had it's >>reverser deploy in cruise a few years back?? (Another explanation??) > >The Lauda 767 had recent, FADEC-equipped Pratt and Whitney PW4000 >engines, while the Birgenair 757 had early (probably non-FADEC) >RB.211-535E4 engines, so there's probably little or no significant >similarity. > FWIW, I'm pretty sure that all -535's are FADEC equipped, from what I remember of our own engine bids in my old firm (Dowty Fuel Systems). John Wangermann From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: B-757 Puerto Plata Accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:31 >Does anyone know if the 757 involved here uses the same >engine/reverser system that Lauda Air used on that 767 that had it's >reverser deploy in cruise a few years back?? (Another explanation??) The 757/767 and 737-300 and greater have had the reverser system modified to include a 'sync-lock' system in response to the Lauda Air crash. The system is designed to lock the reverser sleeves in the stowed position until the crew commands the reversers to deploy. Dave http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011 'The Unofficial L1011 Homepage' From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: zelikman@snakemail.hut.fi (Mikael Zelikman) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominicana References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Helsinki University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:31 Regarding tanking with the wrong fuel ... I don't know about big jets, but about a year ago a light twin crashed at night time in the nothern Finland resulting in one fatality. Preliminary report indicated complete engine failure shortly after take-off. The cause of the crash was the misunderstanding between the crew and the person who refueled the the plane. The pilot was Swedish (I believe) he asked for "Petrol" meaning Avgas and got "lentopetrooli" which Jet A1 in Finnish. Regardless of the above, I doubt the wrong fuel was the cause in the Dominican crash for the simple reason of finding it hard to believe that they could find tens of thousands of lbs of avgas at any airport these days! -- Mika Zelikman zelikman@vipunen.hut.fi Espoo Finland From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jpstrain@netcom.com (Jim Strain) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:32 In article , BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca wrote: > Does anyone have examples of prior incidents of mis-fueling on airliners. > I know of a C130 Hercules which suffered this in Africa some years back. > The airplane survived but required substantial repairs in order to purge > the system. What sort of mis-fueling did you envision? Are there now different kinds of jet fuel? I know it's been a lot of years since I was a ramp rat, but it still *smells* like the same stuff to me. The only fuels I remember ever seeing (and they powered ALL kinds of aircraft) were JP5 (successor to the old JP4) which was and is basically kerosene, and 115/145 AV-GAS (high-octane aviation gasoline used in recips). In my time, the same JP was used for both turbo and prop jets, in supersonic fighters and Boeing transports (C135/707). On the other hand, if by "mis-fueling" you mean putting AV-GAS in a jet, I can't imagine the thing starting without a big time compressor fire. I'm not sure enough of myself to say you're wrong, so please don't interpret this as a criticism. I'm just (as my kids would have it) a geezer who's interested to know if something *else* has passed him by. :-) . . . jim strain in san diego. From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:32 The Friday February 16, 1996 edition of "The Financial Post" (Canadian business newspaper) reports on page 2 that the flight recorder of the 757 has been located. "Search teams picked up a signal yesterday [Thursday] from the flight data recorder on a Boeing 757 airliner that crashed in the Atlantic last week...". The flight recorder was detected by using "sophisticated U.S. Navy equipment" which detected the black box's electronic alert signal. The report goes on to mention that the actual recovery of the black box could take several days. From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: eraueagle@aol.com (ERAU Eagle) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: eraueagle@aol.com (ERAU Eagle) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:32 As far as different fuel types go, yes, there are different nozzles for different fuels. Check out your local FBO's fuel trucks. You'll notice the windmills use one type of nozzle, and the turbines use another. -- Email @ ERAUEagle@aol.com From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:32 Further to my previous message, quoting the page of the A320 FCOM relating to sidestick priority logic:- > However, at any time, a deactivated stick can be reactivated by > momentarily pressing the takeover push button on either stick. > ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >(changed from "... pressing its takeover pushbutton.") > ... > ... It would seem fairly sensible that a > crew member whose *own* stick was deactivated should be able to > reactivate it by pressing its *own* takeover pushbutton, and the > REV 16 text states this clearly. However, the REV 18 text implies > that, having deactivated FO's stick and taken control, the Captain > would reactivate FO's stick by a subsequent action on the *Captain's* > takeover pushbutton (or vice versa, reversing the roles of the two > crew members). I have since spoken to two members of BALPA, who confirmed that the second interpretation is correct, and that this is what the pilots wanted. I would guess that this required a software modification. Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dany@world-net.sct.fr (Jean-Marie Dany) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: world-net.sct.fr Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:33 I don't know if the "side stick priority logic" has been changed but I have found these informations from a rather old FCOM : A320 Flight Crew Operating Manual - FLIGHT CONTROLS - CONTROLS AND INDICATORS 1.27.40 - P 3 - REV 16 - SEQ 002 - "For training only" and transcribes that page of text. I referred to a later copy of the FCOM to check. The whole manual that I referred to was at REV 19, and the page that Francis quotes is at REV 18 in that version. The text is identical except for two lines:- If a takeover push button is pressed for more than 40 seconds the system will latch, ... ^^ (changed from "30 seconds"), and:- However, at any time, a deactivated stick can be reactivated by momentarily pressing the takeover push button on either stick. ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (changed from "... pressing its takeover pushbutton.") The effect of the first change is obvious. The second one is puzzling me. It would seem fairly sensible that a crew member whose *own* stick was deactivated should be able to reactivate it by pressing its *own* takeover pushbutton, and the REV 16 text states this clearly. However, the REV 18 text implies that, having deactivated FO's stick and taken control, the Captain would reactivate FO's stick by a subsequent action on the *Captain's* takeover pushbutton (or vice versa, reversing the roles of the two crew members). Questions:- 1. Do these changes mean that the logic has been modified, or were they made because the manual was originally incorrect compared to the existing logic? That is correct the last guy that pushes the button is always the winner, if ou keep it maintained more than 40 seconds you kill the other sidestick 2. Have I understood the second modified statement correctly, or is this another example of the practical application of the "fuzzy logic" for which the FCOM is famous? In answer to C. Marin Faure's original question, I am not aware of any change to the "left-plus-right-equals-nothing formula", nor of any alteration to the symmetry of the sidestick logic. There are no Operations Engineering Bulletins (OEB) relating to the sidesticks in my copy of the FCOM. The sticks react algebrically when they are actionned at the same time if you don't push the priority button which is also the instinctive disconnect of the autopilot. So the captain could push his stick to the left and the first officer to the right nothing will happen until somebody press the priority button. Strange !! From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "J. Mclaughlin" <101515.435@CompuServe.COM> Subject: A320 Crosswind limits Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:33 Crosswind limit for the A320 on a contaminated runway is 10 knots, but with a forward c-of-g, it becomes 15 knots. Can anyone tell me why? -- jm@netcentral.co.uk From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:33 peter neville gurnell (pgurnell@direct.ca) writes: > ae562@freenet.carleton.ca (Eric Thomas) wrote: >> >> I just heard on the radio an interesting story concerning a Canadian >> airlines Boeing 767. Apparently last night (Jan. 29), at Pearson >> International airport in Toronto, Canada, the Boeing 767 was parked at its >> landing gate, and suddenly a strong wind gust hit the plane such that the >> plane rotated some 90 degrees, and nearly hit a British Airways 747. The >> report stated that the wind lifted the plane by its wings, causing it to >> turn. >> > A more likely scenario would be that the > terminal apron was iced over and a strong wind blew the verical stab. > such that the nose swung around. Curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to telephone Canadian Airlines (1-800-661-4716) and their public relations officer confirmed that indeed there was ice on the ramp, and this ice did play a significant role. From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: 777 engine imbalance (Business Week, 1/29) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:33 In article H Andrew Chuang, Chuanga@cris.com writes: >an issue out of this. Since these tests require the engine to maintain >certain level of thrust, the vibration that one would experience in >windmilling cannot be any worse than that at 80 or 90% speed. But it would be at a different frequency, and could drive resonances in the aircraft. From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Laurent Pouvreau Subject: Q: Joined wings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:34 Does anyone know or has info about Boeings' joined wings aiplane? -- Laurent Pouvreau tel : (+33) 62-17-85-35 ENSAE R1 Ch449 Laurent.Pouvreau@supaero.fr 10 av. Ed. Belin 31055 Toulouse Cedex France From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: andrewsa@cc781.comm.mot.com (Andrew Sapuntzakis) Subject: Re: Aerospatiele-Dassault shotgun wedding References: <4gg7a9$no9@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:34 Does the merger cover all Dassault divisions/sectors, or just the aerospace business? CU Andrew S. andrewsa@cc.comm.mot.com From kls Tue Feb 27 23:00:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: steve yon Subject: museum seeking historical information on fittings, fasteners, etc. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: san diego state university Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Feb 96 23:00:34 The San Diego Aerospace Museum is interested in the chronology of the development of aircraft fittings, fasteners and associated hardware with the primary purpose of accuracy in restoration and reproduction. e.g. when were the following first used in a/c production: elastic stop nuts swaged cable fittings cannon plugs dzus fasteners rivets: round head brazier head flat head countersunk please reply to (yon@rohan.sdsu.edu) and to the newsgroup. thanks. From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Northwest and Airbus: good news for A320, more bad news for A330 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:22 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California On Monday, Northwest announced an order for 20 Airbus A320 aircraft, with ten to be delivered in 1998 and 1999. Northwest's fleet already includes 50 A320s with CFM56-5A1 engines. (The announcement did not specify Northwest's engine choice but it's unlikely that they would switch to the IAE V2500.) The agreement also included a five-year deferral of deliveries of 16 A330 aircraft, which had been scheduled for eight each in 1999 and 2000. The new delivery dates are in 2004 and 2005. More significant was that the agreement, with Airbus and engine supplier Pratt and Whitney, allows Northwest to substitute other products from the two manufacturers. Northwest apparently pressed hard for this option as they are not happy with what they've seen of the A330. Presumably the Pratt engines don't have to be on Airbus aircraft -- the A300-600 and A310 are the only other Airbus offerings which can use Pratt engines, unless you count the A320 with V2500s from IAE, of which Pratt is a partner. It seems more likely that, if Northwest were to convert the A330 order, they'd either opt for the A340 or more A320s, while putting the Pratt engines on Boeing products such as the 747 or 757, which Northwest already has, or a 777 order should they choose the 777 to take the place of their A330 order. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Dominican 757 flight recorder recovered Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:22 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Today's Wall St. Journal has a brief report that the flight recorder (it doesn't say if it was the CVR or DFDR or both) from the Boeing 757 which crashed off the Dominican Republic on February 6 was recovered Wedenesday from a depth of 7,200 feet by a U.S. Navy robot. Assuming there is no significant damage, preliminary data should be available by early next week. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jon Ward Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk Organization: The End at Infinity Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:23 bay@daacdev1.stx.com "John Bay" writes: > Would it be possible to make a flight recorder that would transmit all its > stored data upon request, thereby eliminating the necessity to physically > recover the box? I may be wrong, it's a while since I did my electromagnetics course... The problem is sea water. Sea water contains sodium chloride (and various other things), and this makes it an electrolyte - it can conduct electricty. Because it conducts, this makes it harder for electromagnetic radiation such as radar, radio transmissions and gamma rays to penetrate (there's a load of maths to do with skin depths, conductivity etc. which I will omit for my sanity as well as yours). Now sea water may not be as good as a conductor as copper, but it's a darn sight better than air. Once your flight recorder is in a couple of hundred of feet of water, you might as well put it in a lead-lined box, and drop it down a coal-mine. There is also the question of weight - adding a transmitter to a black box (and batteries) which can survive a crash or explosion means extra pounds. Every flight you take when it doesn't crash costs you money. (Insert religious figures and terrain features here). Now here's a question for those people who's EM theory is a bit more up to scratch - can you count a sea or ocean as a Faraday cage? Jon Ward -------- Work : JRW@liyorkrd.li.co.uk | #include "disk$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 Thu Feb 29 01:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bay@daacdev1.stx.com (John Bay) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bay@daacdev1.stx.com Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:23 John Bay (bay@daacdev1.stx.com) wrote: : Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : : News item in the newspaper today (Feb 16) said that the flight : : recorder from the Alas/Birgenair 757 had been located on the seabed : : 12 miles away from the Dominican Republic. They can now get on with : : the business of recovery via robot submarine. : Would it be possible to make a flight recorder that would transmit all its : stored data upon request, thereby eliminating the necessity to physically : recover the box? To carry the thought a step further (and perhaps to extremes), does current technology make it feasible for airliners to transmit their operating parameters to the ground in real time? -- John G. Bay Hughes STX, 7701 Greenbelt Rd., Suite 400, Greenbelt, MD 20770 bay@daacdev1.stx.com http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/ From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:23 In article ERAU Eagle, eraueagle@aol.com writes: >As far as different fuel types go, yes, there are different nozzles for >different fuels. Which reminds me of something I once saw at an airport. Parked next to each other on the apron were two absolutely identical trucks. On one, words were painted saying "potable water, wash hands before servicing." On the other: "toilet drainage, wash hands after servicing." I hope that they, too, use different nozzles! From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Idaho State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:23 >transports (C135/707). On the other hand, if by "mis-fueling" you mean >putting AV-GAS in a jet, I can't imagine the thing starting without a big >time compressor fire. Jets can run on avgas, but piston engines will suffer from detonation and severe loss of power if run on kerosene (jet fuels). For example, the Garret engines in the Swearingen metroliner are allowed a certain amount of avgas per overhaul cycle (I don't remember the number but it is something on the order of a few hundred gallons). On the other hand, most any piston engine would be destroyed quickly by kerosene. Jim Wolper CFII Department of Mathematics Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209-8085 USA From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concord World Travel Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:24 rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft), in article "Airbus A3XX---vapor plane?" on 27 Feb 96 23:00:25 , wrote: >There have been recent newsreports about Airbus trying to launch a >competitor to the 747 at a cost of up to some $14 billion (figure >from a French govt minister, reported in Feb 12 issue of AvWeek). >Stated reason is that Airbus is getting beaten in megadeals because >Boeing has a 747 and Airbus doesn't. >Weird thing about this, however, is that the recent megadeals have >little to do with the 747, but are rather centered on the 777, for >which Airbus has two competitors in the A330/A340. >There's no question that Boeing makes a lot of its money from the 747, >but that doesn't change the fact that the recent megadeals have little >to do with the 747. Pointing at the 747 as the reason for Airbus's >recent troubles is disingenuous at best---the real problem is that the >777 is giving the A330/340 a tough time. Is part of Airbus's problem the fact that Boeing is in a position to offer an unmatched product range? Boeing can be very competitive price-wise with Airbus but charge megabucks for its 747. >(Aside: where would Airbus build such a thing? Could it fit in the >Toulouse facility? If this thing goes forward, watch for one hell of >a fight over the issue of who gets final assembly of Europe's largest >plane. Think the French (already insecure about German power) could >stand to see the Germans do it, or might the Brits claim that it was >their turn to do a final assembly? Oh, the political problems that this >would cause would be classic, since the final assembly site would then >be thought of as "the" Airbus site. And a lot more stuff would have to >be built on site. How do you transport gigantic wings from England, >anyway? I wouldn't be surprised that any such site might straddle >the France-Germany border, giving them both boasting rights). I read a report recently that BAe is thinking of upping its stake in Airbus from 20% to at least 30% as it's doing well out of supplying wings (whereas DASA and Aerospatiale are losing money). To do this, DASA and Aerospatiale will have to give up equally from their holding, which is 37.9% each, as the consortium rules are that they must both have equal shares. If this did happen, then one can certainly envisage BAe not wanting to export its wings any more. >The problem, of course, it that it's unclear whether even the EU govts >can afford the costs of the A3XX program, given their fiscal problems. >Hence, presumably, the frantic search for other outfits willing to >invest capital in the project (Russians, Chinese, you name it). >Airbus's own figure of $8 billion suggests that the obvious strategy >of low-balling the program costs (taking lessons from NASA, I guess). >Once you've spent $8 billion, of course, who would cavil at spending >another $6 billion to finish the program? Actually, I might, if it means raising my taxes to help pay for this project. In any case, it might not be $14bn. John Leahy, head of Airbus Sales and Marketing, reckons $8bn, although Manfred Bischoff, DASA's chairman, says it could be as high as $12bn. If the A3XX will be, say, a 600-seater aircraft, then $14bn translates to a cost of over $23m per seat - surely way too high. On the other hand, $8bn means $13.3m per seat, a figure which I understand to much more in line with building a new aircraft. Roger Chung-Wee Concord World Travel, 278 Wightman Road, Hornsey, London N8 0LX. Tel: +44(0)181-342 8400 Fax: +44(0)181-348 0822 *** Long-haul and Caribbean Specialist *** From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Venus Equilateral Communications Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:24 EC> == Eric Chevalier EC> I've seen a number of MD-11 freighters that seem to have all eight EC> passenger doors and metal window plugs. I get the impression that EC> the operators of these aircraft may have wanted something that could EC> be relatively easily converted to passenger use if the cargo market EC> didn't pan out. Unlikely (I don't know of any market for cargo -> pax conversions, other than stuff like the military does with web seats for troops). More likely (given the number of pax MD-11s already converted to cargo) is that the aircraft you saw were originally built as passenger aircraft. (This brings up an interesting question, though; are cargo conversions typically left with some or all passenger exit doors fitted, or are they more often removed and replaced with fixed panels to save weight?) -- Christopher Davis * * [ PGP & MIME gladly accepted / PGP keys on keyservers, WWW page, finger ] You know the Internet is too commercialized when... you go to "Internet World" and the Microsoft booth is 8 times the size of the Cisco booth. From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hoffmans@aol.com (Hoffmans) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies 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: 29 Feb 96 01:24:24 Because of structural differences in the aircraft, a 747 freighter with a SUD would actually be able to carry less cargo volume on the main deck. hoffmans@aol.com From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) Organization: Kindergarten Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:25 wrote: >There's no question that Boeing makes a lot of its money from the 747, That only happens because the 747 has been around for a long time. The A3XX is Airbus' self destruction button. Boeing's own production estimates for the 747 derivatives look pretty conservative (~25/year). It may be because (i) in case of a downturn, large aircraft orders may suffer more than others, (ii) Boeing is already factoring in some Airbus competitor, (iii) Boeing is trying to make the market look small to scare Airbus or (iv) the market is small indeed. I stick with option (iv). Demand for the 747 has been inflated in the past because there was no "slightly smaller" alternative and because of range. Now there is the A340, the 777-300 and there will be some very long range 777. These aircraft steal some 747 orders. Three of the largest 747 operators (LH, SQ and BA) are already lined up at Boeing's launchpad before the aircraft are frozen. Airbus' project only has a chance if it captures some of the other big 747 customers (AF, JL, UA, NW, CX, ANA, Korean, QF), which sounds unlikely. Even if the plane looks great on paper, airlines will be wary to commit to a brand new $250m plane when they can opt for a derivative of something that has proved to work well. >It's also hard to justify even from a industrial policy viewpoint. >Even if you accept that Europe "must" have the capability to build >transport aircraft, that's been achieved with the A330/340 program. There is also the A300 ST, which has a huge fuselage but very likely limited range and is being pushed as a military transport. From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) Subject: Re: A320 Crosswind limits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Idaho State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:25 >Crosswind limit for the A320 on a contaminated runway is 10 knots, >but with a forward c-of-g, it becomes 15 knots. Can anyone tell me >why? I do not know the specifics of the A320 but as a general rule rudder authority is an important factor in crosswind landing capability. A forward Center-of-Gravity (within limits, of course) usually increases rudder authority because it lengthens the "arm". Another factor might be increased effectiveness of nosewheel steering. Jim Wolper CFII Department of Mathematics Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209-8085 USA From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Greene Subject: Estimating engine maintainence needs? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:25 I have a business budgetting issue I'm trying to understand... I'm trying to figure out how airlines would plan their annual and quarterly budgets for engine maintainence costs? I'm assuming that the marketing people estimate how much traffic and what routes they'll be serving, from that the engineers could estimate the potential number of hours and cycles on the engines. From what I understand, the timing of engine overhauls is rather hard to forecast -- now statistically it might be possible to estimate for a given number of planes and estimated flight hours or cycles that you'd have a probability distribution across parts so that you could calculate an expected value... but for timing of labor and inventory needs are there distributions that can be assigned to when failures would occur? Or are there other approaches, perhaps maintainence simulators that are used commercially? Are these assumptions reasonable or is there a completely difference budgetting process? Many thanks for any help or pointers to useful references. -David From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Marcelo F. Cosi" Subject: Re: Vickers Viscounts in the US? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuBrasil Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:25 Rock&Roll group called Boston had one in mint condition. From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cpeters Subject: Re: Whys and Hows of Water Injection on Jet Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: North Bay Network, Inc. news server - not responsible for content Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:25 According to Bill Gunston's book `Jet and Turbine Aero Engines', water injection both cools the turbine gas temperature (thus allowing for higher fuel flow which increases thrust) and increases air density, which provides greater mass flow through the turbine, giving higher jetpipe pressure, and thus augmenting thrust. Injection of water or a water/methanol mix was either into the combustion chamber or before the compressor. The advantage of combuster injection was greater water flow rates. Either way, this system is non-existent on most modern jet engines. It was used when engines were more anemic (for a given weight), especially on hot and high takeoffs. The bulk, cost, maintenance, weight, louder noise, and efflux of black smoke are also reasons that lead to its demise. Hope this helped. Carl Peters From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: A320 Crosswind limits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:26 In article , "J. Mclaughlin" <101515.435@CompuServe.COM> wrote: >Crosswind limit for the A320 on a contaminated runway is 10 knots, >but with a forward c-of-g, it becomes 15 knots. Can anyone tell me >why? > I do know from experience that the A320 tends to be tail heavy. The one I look after routinely has the nose oleo fully extended during unloading operations. It is the only type of aircraft I have seen do this even when properly loaded. THis could be the reason. The aircraft could tend to slide the nose gear sideways on ice and couse steering and control on the ground problems at speeds where the rudder is not yet effective. Are you sure this is a limitation on the A320? I'll look it up in the flight manual tomorrow. -- ----------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org AME (Canada), A&P, PPASEL HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg ----------------------------- If it is Blue, Frozen and falls through your roof, It is not a Meteorite. From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:26 In article , dany@world-net.sct.fr (Jean-Marie Dany) wrote: > I don't know if the "side stick priority logic" has been changed but I > have found these informations from a rather old FCOM : > I ran through the logic test from the Maintenance manual for the sidestick logic last night and this is what I found... Aircraft is on short term lease from an Company in Britain so the logic could be different. 1) Pushing either sidestick button will transfer priority to the associated side. Aural warning "Priority Left (right)". 2) Holding the side stick for 40 seconds deactivates opposite stick 3) Pushing button on deactivated stick, reactivates stick. 4) holding button on deactivated stick switches priority to that stick. 5) Moving one stick right and one stick left results in no flight control deflections. 6) same as above for all flight control surfaces. except rudder. This was done according to the MM and passed the test. Any questions? -- ----------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org AME (Canada), A&P, PPASEL HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg ----------------------------- If it is Blue, Frozen and falls through your roof, It is not a Meteorite. From kls Thu Feb 29 01:24:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:26 In article , Rick Hughes wrote: >As previously stated when referring to our operation at Cathay, we >routinely operate our A340's on ULH services to Europe and North America >at speeds of M0.82 to M0.835. The actual value depending on the factors >applicable to all heavy jets: weight, head/tail-wind component, altitude >assigned etc. If required, we will cruise at M0.84, though this is rarely >called for and does increase fuel consumption with the supercritical wing >section. Fact, not fiction >.... NO buffeting. > What about the lack of climb and time to cruise performance? I know The A340 in particular has a power problem that limits the aircraft to a step climb which is more pronounced than it's competitors. Any comments on this? -- ----------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org AME (Canada), A&P, PPASEL HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg ----------------------------- If it is Blue, Frozen and falls through your roof, It is not a Meteorite. From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:11 In article , Nguyen Gia Toan wrote: >To add another argument to the subsidies debate, why not talk about the >exchange parity between US and European currencies ? >Economists agree worldwide that the US dollar is not on par with its real >value in terms of trade markets and economic value on international >financial markets. >This looks very much like (not so) hidden subsidies doesn't it ? This is absurd. Currencies go up, currencies go down. 10 years ago it was the other way around and various American companies were having a tough time because of it. Anyone who followed the currency markets the last 10 years knows that they, the market, set the rates. The French, in particular, should know this, after the way the markets took them to the cleaners in '92. And when I say "market" I mean "market". That is, thousands of individual players buying and selling independently. There's no Anglo-Saxon cabal conspiring against Europe, though that's the way that a lot of Europeans seem to view it. You might notice that the Japanese have had at least the currency problem that Europe has had over the last few years, but Japanese companies have been a lot more successful in dealing with it. RNA From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:11 In article , Michael Carley wrote: >bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) writes: > >>However, living in a country where opinions are biased the other >>way, I've heard and read many times that the only difference >>between government subsidies in Europe and the US is that >>European ones are called subsidies ... > >>Any comment ? > >Think of it this way---would there have been a B707 >without heavy subsidy from the USAF? Does anyone >know roughly what the value of hidden subsidies to >the US aero industry from military development >contracts and NASA work is? Just wondering. You'd still have to explain the DC-8 (very few bought by the US military), and, for that matter, the Convair 880 and 990 (707-class jets produced by Convair simultaneously). And that's even assuming there _were hidden subsidies, which has yet to be proven. In fact the Convair 880/990 is an excellent example of the market at work. They weren't competitive with the 707/DC-8, and so the company exited the market. No subsidy from the US govt, just the old heave-ho. Imagine that! RNA From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tnguyen@imag.fr (Nguyen Gia Toan) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INRIA Rhone-Alpes (France) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:11 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > Recent pronouncements by Jean Pierson, the Airbus executive officer, > blatantly state that their objective is to achieve market domination at > the expense of the Americans. > Most of your arguments are true and observable facts. However, Airbus marketing staff, which is a bit more realistic, plans for a significant share of the world airliner market. This has been defined as 30 to 50 %, depending on long-range (A340) and medium-range models (A330-A319-A320-A321). A bientot, Toan -- Nguyen, Gia Toan Tel : (33) 76.57.43.23 Fax : (33) 76.57.47.93 "SHOOD: Manufacturing and engineering systems integration" INRIA Rhone-Alpes, 46, Av. Felix Viallet, 38031 GRENOBLE Cedex 1 Serveur : ftp://ftp.imag.fr/pub/SHOOD/index.html From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk (Jim Tilbey) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:12 In message rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: > One thing the Europeans never were very good at, though, was selling > airliners. The Comet flopped. The Trident was sunk by the 727 (on the > 727's own merits). The Caravelle never really sold well. What was > really going on in the late 1960s was a bad case of airliner envy. The problem has never really been the ability to sell airliners, it was more a problem of making a product to sell. While Boeing et al were producing mass market airliners with worldwide appeal here in Britain the industry was making aircraft to individual airline specifications. The Trident was an aircraft that was well ahead of its time with cruise speeds and autoland capabilities that most of todays modern airliners find hard to beat. This was great for BEA who got everything they wanted and the aircraft served them well for 20 years in weather conditions you only seem to find on a regular basis in Northern Europe. Unfortunately BEA's needs did not mirror other airlines needs and the aircraft hardly sold outside Britain. The VC10 suffered a similar fate, basically a good aircraft which is still in service with the Royal Air Force, but built on a spec from BOAC for an aircraft that could operate in and out of high altitude, small strip length airports. Once again no one else was interested. The BAC1-11 was about the only success story, because although built on the same principal, for BEA once again, it took a lot of people by suprise when it broke into the US market, especially since there was strong competition from the DC-9. -- Jim Tilbey Kirkwall, Orkney, UK jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Ahrens Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Operations Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:12 Michael Carley wrote: >bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) writes: >Think of it this way---would there have been a B707 >without heavy subsidy from the USAF? Does anyone >know roughly what the value of hidden subsidies to >the US aero industry from military development >contracts and NASA work is? Just wondering. The short answer is they did. The -80 prototype of the 707 and C-135 was built by Boeing without any government subsidy or even any customers (military or commercial). My opinions are my own. Any match to the opionions of my employer are purely coincidental. -- John Ahrens 206 237-0132 m/s 94-26 email john@misfit.ca.boeing.com personal ahrens@gonzo.wolfenet.com From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: Subsidies now 727/Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:13 Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: : One thing the Europeans never were very good at, though, was selling : airliners. The Comet flopped. The Trident was sunk by the 727 (on the : 727's own merits). The Caravelle never really sold well. What was : really going on in the late 1960s was a bad case of airliner envy. The Comet failed because so little was known of metal fatigue and stress. The Trident was originally planned the same size as the B727 but BEA were tied to buying British built aircraft and wanted it smaller. If the original Trident had been built the size of the T3 and with decent engines instead of the total oil loss system booster engine the competition may have been a little more interesting. -- Ian Judge _|_ ian@judgei.demon.co.uk _____(_)_____ ! ! ! From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:13 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: [...] Just a few short answers: - Being a consortium of companies is one of the major PROBLEMS that Airbus is currently addressing. It generates lack of coordination and extra costs. The benefits are for the member countries (in terms of employment), not for Airbus itself. - Most (if not all) of the government financial helps to Airbus are actually _loans_ that Airbus _is_ paying back. Public helps are now controlled by the European Commission, and direct funding is forbidden except in special cases under strict conditions (e.g. Air France recently). - As somebody already said, the current low rate of the US $ _is_ some form of government support. Moreover our presidents are not used to act like commercial travellers for our companies, and anyway their arguments can't have the same weight. - About the military argument, we don't have here such a large market like in the US, where our companies could make sufficient benefits. Moreover I don't think the US government would buy foreign weapon systems, even if they were better. Several european countries still do that. Of course you can argue that US systems _are_ better, but ... :-) JF -- Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr) Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile TOULOUSE, FRANCE From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: schell@condor.psych.ucsb.edu (Terry Schell;x3332) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Psychology Department, University of California, Santa Barbara Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:13 In tnguyen@imag.fr (Nguyen Gia Toan) writes: >To add another argument to the subsidies debate, why not talk about the >exchange parity between US and European currencies ? >Economists agree worldwide that the US dollar is not on par with its real >value in terms of trade markets and economic value on international >financial markets. >This looks very much like (not so) hidden subsidies doesn't it ? Correct me if I am wrong here... but US currency if free to vary in international markets, i.e., US currency's value is based on market economics. If you feel that there is inequity between European and US currencies, perhaps you should look carefully at the system European nations use to constrain the value of their currencies. Terry currency. From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:13 In article , rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: re: subsidies > Then you had better say what they are called in the US. We have > to be able to call it something, if it exists. The problem is that the USA, for trade "fighting" purposes, will accuse other countries of the "subsidies" sin and deny that it is helping its own industries in any way in order to make the other country look worse. For instance, the USA cried foul when Canada, in an attempt to help our farmers match the US grain prices on the markets, gave outright grain subsidies to our farmers which were forced to sell below cost in order to compate against the US grain growers. The USA claimed that canada's actions were very bad and wanted to lower the canadian grain exports to the USA. Throughout this, the USA denied that it ever gave subsidies to its grain farmers. So, while the USA may deny ever giving any subsidies to Boeing, McD and Lockheed, the facts are that the USA government spends HUGE amounts in military expenditures (which serve no constructive purposes - they are designed to destroy) which support many industries. Look at what happened in southern california after the cold war ended. Lots of job losses. The point that the original poster wanted to make was not that military "subsidies" were bigger than outright subsidies elsewhere, but rather that the USA was also "guilty" of subsidies except that they were dressed up differently (military, tax breaks etc). From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:14 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: > First off, Airbus Industrie is a consortium of companies. It is not > a private corporation. Many of the people complaining probably have > difficulty comprehending the notion that a major industrial player > can operate independently of the state, but, hey, it happens in the > United States. It is not always the best thing in the world, but it > certainly does happen. Excuse my ignorance, but could someone *PLEASE* post a comprehensive list of the members of that consortium and a note on whether each member is: -privately held -crown corporation (shares owned by government) -division of government (operates out of govt budgets) As I understand it, a consortium is a bunch of companies getting together to build something. A consortium does not necessarily mean that it is government owned or controlled. Just because the EU governments decided to team up and produce something which could compete against the USA and gave mandates to selected companies to get together and build something does not necessarily mean that the consortium is "government owned". So, until someone posts a comprehensive list of members of Airbus, and what type and how much of government financial help was given out, it is rather pointless to debate Airbus based on the urban myth that it is government owned, government controlled, subsidised to the neck, highly inefficient, staffed by bureaucrats etc etc etc. From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Sapuntzakis Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:14 In addition to 707 production depending on the KC135, one source (which I can dig up) I have read claims the DC-10 did not have enough (commercial) orders to justify production until the U.S. gov't stepped in with a request for the KC-10. Also, the U.S. aircraft makers have, historically, been fulfilling much larger domestic contracts because of the large size of the U.S. military. Since development of military aircraft is so expensive, there is much to be gained from manufacturing hundreds instead of dozens. CU Andrew S. andrewsa@comm.mot.com From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:14 >In addition to 707 production depending on the KC135, one source >(which I can dig up) I have read claims the DC-10 did not have enough >(commercial) orders to justify production until the U.S. gov't >stepped in with a request for the KC-10. I've heard that the KC-10 order kept the production line going, without which the MD-11 might never have been built. However, claims that the KC-10 order allowed the DC-10 to be produced in the first place are absurd -- the very first KC-10 was the 311th airframe off the DC-10/KC-10/MD-11 line and first flew nearly a decade after the first DC-10 flight. I don't know exactly when the first KC-10 order was placed, but even with the inefficiency of the U.S. Government's purchasing bureaucracy, a nearly 15 year order-to-delivery cycle is not believable. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ray Carini Subject: Re: Subsidies ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Individual Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:15 Michael Carley wrote: >>Any comment ? > >Think of it this way---would there have been a B707 >without heavy subsidy from the USAF? Does anyone >know roughly what the value of hidden subsidies to >the US aero industry from military development >contracts and NASA work is? Just wondering. > Boeing used it's own money to develop and build the Dash 80. Three weeks AFTER it's first flight, the Air Force ordered 29 tanker versions designated as the KC-135 From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Q: Joined wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:15 In article , Laurent Pouvreau wrote: >Does anyone know or has info about Boeings' joined wings aiplane? Do you mean the 777 folding wing? None have yet been built with the folding wing. I guess no airline has an aircraft carrier :) -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org AME (Canada), A&P, PPASEL HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Lockheed TriStar 200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:15 >Hey, that's the first L-1011 I ever flew on! It's also familiar >because it is (almost) a one-of-a-kind aircraft. > OK now.... What Variant were the models built for PSA log ago that had the lounge downstairs and the folding stairs into the belly? One (maybe two) were sold to Worldways Canada and another one (maybe two) to LTU. This was a strange variant and only three were built. What was the designation? -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org AME (Canada), A&P, PPASEL HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg From kls Thu Feb 29 02:04:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Lockheed TriStar 200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:15 >What Variant were the models built for PSA log ago that had the lounge >downstairs and the folding stairs into the belly? They presumably had the standard MGTOW and fuel tankage (for intra- California use, PSA would not have needed extra fuel!) as they had the standard L-1011-385-1 designation. The only way you can tell them from others is their customer code, a 193L- prefix in the MSN. >One (maybe two) were sold to Worldways Canada and another one (maybe two) to >LTU. >This was a strange variant and only three were built. I had always thought there were three, but in fact there were *five* aircraft built for PSA: 193L-1064 193L-1079 193L-1114 193L-1120 193L-1125 The first two flew with PSA for several years before being returned to Lockheed. They were converted to TriStar 100 specs and eventually ended up with Worldways. The other three went straight from Lockheed into storage until 1977, at which time they were delivered to PSA (in March, May, and October, respectively) and sold to LTU the following day. These aircraft were not converted from TriStar 1 specs (1114 was destroyed by fire in 1991 while undergoing maintenance at Dusseldorf). Since they never actually flew for PSA, they may not have had the lower lounge and folding stairs. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From news Wed Feb 14 05:28:54 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!newsmaster From: 100625.1633@compuserve.com (Patrick Baudis) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Airlines codes - text version 1/4 Date: 14 Feb 1996 01:41:00 -0800 Organization: Patrick BAUDIS Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4fsanc$4lp@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> References: <4fps16$o1n@dub-news-svc-3.compuserve.com> Airline 3-digit 2-digit Country Code Code ======================================================================= ABERDEEN LONDON EXPRESS UK ACES COLUMBIA AES VX Colombia ACS (Air Charter System) CSW EF Canada ADA AIR ZY Albania ADC AIRLINES ADK Nigeria ADRIA AIRWAYS ADR JP Slovenia ADVANCE AIR CHARTERS Canada AECA CARGA EAE 2A Ecuador AER LINGUS EIN EI Ireland AER TURAS ATT QT Ireland AERO ASIA E4 Pakistan AERO CALIFORNIA SER JR Mexico AERO CARIBBEAN CRN Cuba AERO CONTINENTE Peru AERO COSTA RICA AEK ML Costa Rica AERO FIESTA MEXICANA Mexico AERO INTERCONTINENTAL Ecuador AERO JET AOJ Switzerland AERO LLOYD AEF YP Germany AERO PERU PLI PL Peru AERO REPUBLICA COLOMBIA Colombia AERO SANTA AERO SUR Argentina AERO UNION USA AERO URUGUAY AUY Uruguay AEROBRASIL CARGO Brazil AEROCANCUN ACU RE Mexico AEROCARIBE QA Mexico AEROEXO AJO Mexico AEROLEASING FPG FP Switzerland AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS ARG AR Argentina AEROLINEAS LATINAS LTN USA - Florida AEROMAK Macedonia AEROMEXICO AMX AM Mexico AEROMEXTOUR Mexico AEROMONTERREY MOT 7M Mexico AERONAVES DEL PERU ADP XX Peru AEROPOSTAL LAV LV Venezuela AEROPUMA 6P USA - Florida AEROSUCRE COLUMBIA KRE Colombia AEROSUR Bolivia AEROVIAS DAP Chile AEROVIAS ESPECIALES DE CARGA Colombia AEROVIAS SA XU Guatemala AFFRETAIR AFM ZL Brazil AFRICAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL AIK Kenya AFRICAN INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS AIN UK AFRICAN JOINT AIR SERVICES AFRICAN SAFARI AIRWAYS QSC USA - Utah AFRICAN TRANS AIRLINES Nigeria AFRIK AIR LINKS Sierra Leone AGRO AIR INTERNATIONAL Dominican Republic AIGLE AZUR AAF ZI France AIR 2000 AMM DP UK AIR AFRIQUE RKA RK Ivory Coast AIR ALFA Turkey AIR ALGERIE DAH AH Algeria AIR ARUBA ARU FQ Aruba AIR ASIA Malaysia AIR ASIATIC India AIR ATLANTA ICELANDIC ABD CC Iceland AIR ATLANTIC ATL 9A Canada AIR AUSTRAL REU UU France - La Reunion AIR BC ABL ZX Canada AIR BELGIUM ABB AJ Belgium AIR BERLIN BER AB Germany AIR BOTSWANA BOT BP Botswana AIR BRISTOL UK AIR BUDAPEST Hungary AIR BURKINA VBW VH Burkina Faso AIR CALEDONIE INTERNATIONAL CDI SB France - New Caledonia AIR CANADA ACA AC Canada AIR CARIBBEAN XC Netherlands Antilles AIR CHARTER ACF France AIR CHINA CCA CA China AIR CLUB INTERNATIONAL Canada AIR COLUMBUS CNB BO Portugal AIR EAST AFRICA Kenya AIR ENTREPRISE INTERNATIONAL AEN France AIR EUROPA AEA UX Spain AIR EUROPE AEL Italy AIR FOYLE UPA GS UK AIR FRANCE AFR AF France AIR FRANCE ASIE AIR GABON AGN GN Gabon AIR GALAXY France AIR GREAT WALL China AIR GUINEE GIB GI Guinea AIR GUYANE GUY ID France - French Guiana AIR HOLLAND CHARTER BV AHR GG Netherlands AIR HONG KONG AHK LD Hong Kong AIR INDIA AIC AI India AIR INTER EUROPE ITF IT France AIR IVOIRE VUN VU Cote D'Ivoire AIR JAMAICA AJM JM Jamaica AIR JET AIJ YH France AIR KONA Bulgaria AIR KORYO KCA JS North Korea AIR LANKA ALK UL Sri Lanka AIR LIBERTE LIB VO France AIR LIBERTE TUNISIE LBT QT Tunisia AIR LITTORAL LIT FU France AIR MACAU Macau AIR MADAGASCAR MDG MD Madagascar AIR MADEIRA Portugal AIR MALAWI AML QM Malawi AIR MALDIVES Maldives AIR MALTA AMC KM Malta AIR MARGARITA MAG PW USA - New York AIR MARSHALL ISLANDS MRS CW Marshall Islands AIR MARTINIQUE MTQ NN France - Martinique AIR MAURITANIE MRT MR Mauritania AIR MAURITIUS MAU MK Mauritius AIR NAMIBIA AMZ SN Namibia AIR NAURU RON ON Nauru AIR NEW ZEALAND ANZ NZ New Zealand AIR NIPPON ANK EL Japan AIR NIUGINI ANG PX Papua New Guinea AIR NOVA ARN QK Canada AIR OPS OOE Sweden AIR PACIFIC FJI FJ Fiji AIR PROVENCE INTERNATIONAL APR DG France AIR RWANDA RWD RY Rwanda AIR SERVE USA AIR SERVICE HUNGARY RSZ Hungary AIR SEYCHELLES SEY HM Seychelles AIR SINAI ASD 4D Egypt AIR SOUTH USA AIR STAR ZANZIBAR Tanzania AIR SWAZI CARGO CWS GK Swaziland AIR TAHITI NUI AIR TANZANIA ATC TC Tanzania AIR TERANGA JG Switzerland AIR TERREX TRX Czech Republic AIR TOULOUSE INTERNATIONAL TLE France AIR TRANSAT TSC TS Canada AIR TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL ATN 8C USA - Arkansas AIR UK UKA UK UK AIR UK LEISURE UKL UK UK AIR VANUATU AVN NF Vanuatu AIR VARADERO AVY Cuba AIR VIAS Brazil AIR WISCONSIN ZW USA - Wisconsin AIR ZAIRE AZR QC Zaire AIR ZIMBABWE AZW UM Zimbabwe AIRBORNE EXPRESS ABX GB USA - Ohio AIRBUS INDUSTRIE AIB Europe AIRFAST INDONESIA AFE Indonesia AIRLINES OF BRITAIN HOLDINGS PLC UK AIRTOURS INTERNATIONAL AIH VZ UK AIRTRAIN USA AIRWORLD UK ALAS DE TRANSPORTE INTERNACIONAL ALW RW Dominican Republic ALASKA AIRLINES ASA AS USA - Washington ALBANIAN AIRLINES 7Y Albania ALBATROSS AIRLINES Turkey ALEXANDER AVIATION New Zealand ALIADRIATICA AP Italy ALITALIA AZA AZ Italy ALL ASIA AIRLINES Philippine ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS ANA NH Japan ALL-AMERICA AIRLINES USA ALLAIRE AIR SERVICE USA ALLEGRO AIR Mexico ALM ANTILLEAN AIRLINES ALM LM Netherlands Antilles ALOHA AIRLINES AAH AQ USA - Hawaii ALYEMDA DUA DY Yemen AMBASSADOR AIRWAYS AMY UK AMC Egypt AMERICA WEST AIRLINES AWE HP USA - Arizona AMERICAN AIRLINES AAL AA USA - Texas AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS CKS CB USA - Michigan AMERICAN TRANS AIR AMT TZ USA - Indiana AMERICANA DE AVIACION 8A Peru AMERIJET INTERNATIONAL AJT JH USA - Florida AMR EAGLE ANDES AIRLINES EDA ED Ecuador ANGOLA AIR CHARTER DTA DT Angola ANSETT AIR FREIGHT AAA AN Australia ANSETT AUSTRALIA AAA AN Australia ANSETT EXPRESS NSW WX Australia ANSETT NEW ZEALAND NMA ZQ New Zealand ANSETT W.A. AWA MV Australia AOM FRENCH AIRLINES AOM IW France APA INTERNATIONAL AIR Dominican Republic ARCA COLUMBIA AKC ZU Colombia AREQUIPA AIRLINES SA Peru ARIANA AFGHAN AIRLINES FGA FG Afghanistan ARICANA AIRLINES Canada ARKIA ISRAELI AIRLINES AIZ IZ Israel ARROW AIR APW JW USA - Florida ASERCA Venezuela ASIANA AIRLINES AAR OZ Korea ATI ATI BM Italy ATLANTIC AIRWAYS FLI RC Faroe Islands ATLANTIC CARIBBEAN INTL AIRWAYS Canada ATLANTIC ISLAND AIRWAYS MV Canada ATLAS AIR PT USA - New York ATS AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE ATS Zaire AUSTRAL LINEAS AEREAS (ALA) AUT AU Argentina AUSTRALIA AIR INTERNATIONAL XF Australia AUSTRALIA WORLD AIRWAYS AWA Australia AUSTRALIA-ASIA AIRLINES AAU IM Australia AUSTRALIAN AIR EXPRESS Australia AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES AUS TN Australia AUSTRALIAN AIRLINK AUS TN Australia AUSTRIAN AIR TRANSPORT Austria AUSTRIAN AIRLINES AUA OS Austria AVATLANTIC KYC USA - Florida AVENSA AVE VE Venezuela AVESCA Colombia AVIACION DEL NOROESTE ANW 5T Mexico AVIACO AYC AO Spain AVIACSA CHP 6A Mexico AVIANCA AVA AV Colombia AVIATECA GUG GU Guatemala AVIOGENEX AGX JJ Serbia AVIOIMPEX AXX Macedonia AVISTAR KJA Cyprus BALAIR CTA BBB BB Switzerland BALATON AIR SERVICE Hungary BALKAN BULGARIAN AIRLINES LAZ LZ Bulgaria BANAT AIR SERVICE Romania BANLA INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS USA - Florida BARRON AIRWAYS India BEIJING AIRLINES China BELAIR ILE-DE-FRANCE France BHOJA AIR Pakistan BIMAN BANGLADESH AIRLINES BBC BG Bangladesh BIRGENAIR BHY KT Turkey BLUE AIRLINES BUL Zaire BON AIR Iran BOPAIR BOP BV Bophuthatswana BOSPHORUS AIRWAYS Turkey BOURAQ INDONESIA AIRLINES BOU BO Indonesia BRAATHENS SAFE BRA BU Norway BRADLEY AIR SERVICES BAR/FAB 7F Canada BRASAIR TRANSPORTES AEREOS Brazil BRITANNIA AIRWAYS BAL BY UK BRITISH AIRWAYS BAW BA UK BRITISH ASIA AIRWAYS BAW BA UK BRITISH MIDLAND AIRWAYS BMA BD UK BRITISH WORLD AIRLINES BAF VF UK BUFFALO AIRWAYS BVA BV USA - Texas BURLINGTON AIR EXPRESS 8W USA - California BURUNDI CHARTER AIR Burundi BUSINESS AIR GNT II UK BUSINESS AIRLINER Argentina BUSINESS EXPRESS GAA HG USA - Connecticut BWIA INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS BWA BW Trinidad & Tobago From news Wed Feb 14 05:28:54 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!newsmaster From: 100625.1633@compuserve.com (Patrick Baudis) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Airlines codes - text version 2/4 Date: 14 Feb 1996 01:42:29 -0800 Organization: Patrick BAUDIS Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4fsaq5$4mj@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> References: <4fps16$o1n@dub-news-svc-3.compuserve.com> Airline 3-digit 2-digit Country Code Code ======================================================================= C-AIR CARGO United Arab Emirates CALEDONIAN AIRWAYS CKT KT UK CAMBODIA INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES Kampuchea CAMEROON AIRLINES UYC UY Cameroon CANADA 3000 AIRLINES CMM 2T Canada CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL CDN CP Canada CANADIAN REGIONAL AIRLINES CRA KI Canada CAPITOL AIR EXPRESS USA CARAVEN Venezuela CARGO AIR LINES ICL Israel CARGO LION Belgium CARGO NEW ZEALAND New Zealand CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL CLX CV Luxembourg CARGOSUR OWS OW Spain CARIBBEAN AIRLINES Jamaica CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS Aruba CARIBJET CBJ Brussels CARNIVAL AIR LINES CAA KW USA - Florida CASINO EXPRESS CEX XP USA - Nevada CASPIAN AIRLINES Iran CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS CPA CX Hong Kong CAYMAN AIRWAYS CAY KX Cayman Islands CEBU AIR Philippines CENTENNIAL AIRLINES BE Spain CENTURY EXPRESS AIRLINES Canada CHALLENGE AIR CARGO CWC WE USA - Florida CHINA AIRLINES CAL CI Taiwan CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES CES MU China CHINA GENERAL AVIATION CORP CTH GP China CHINA INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION AIR SERVICES China CHINA NORTHERN AIRLINES CBF CJ China CHINA NORTHWEST AIRLINES CNW WH China CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CSN CZ China CHINA SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CXN SZ China CHINA TOURISM AIRLINE CO China CHINA UNITED AIRLINES China CHINA XINHUA AIRLINES X2 China CHINA XINJIANG AIRLINES XO China CITY EXPRESS Australia CITYJET Ireland CLINTONDALE AVIATION COMAIR COM OH USA - Ohio COMAIR (Commercial Airways) CAW MN South Africa CONCORD AIRLINES Nigeria CONDOR FLUGDIENST CFG DF Germany CONQUEST SUN AIRLINES 5C USA CONSTELLATION INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES Belgium CONTI FLUG DD Germany CONTINENTAL AIRLINES COA CO USA - Texas CONTINENTAL LITE COA CO USA - Texas CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA COA CO Marianas Islands COPA PANAMA CMP CM Panama CORSAIR CRL SS France CORSE MEDITERRANEE CCM XK France CRETAN AIRLINES Greece CROATIA AIRLINES CTN OU Croatia CROSSAIR CRX LX Switzerland CSA CZECHOSLOVAK AIRLINES CSA OK Czech & Slovak Republics CUBANA CUB CU Cuba CYPRUS AIRWAYS CYP CY Cyprus CYPRUS TURKISH AIRLINES YVK YK Turkey DAALLO AIRLINES D3 Djibouti DAMANIA AIRWAYS India DAS AIR CARGO DSR SE UK DEBONAIR AIRWAYS UK DELTA AIR LINES DAL DL USA - Georgia DELTA AIR TRANSPORT DAT SN Belgium DEUTSCHE BA BAG DI Germany DHL AIRWAYS DHL ER USA - Ohio DIAGONAL EUROPEAN AIR LINK France DIGEX AERO CARGO Brazil DINAR LINEAS AEREAS Argentina DISCOVERY AIRWAYS UK DOMINICANA DOA DO Dominican Republic DOWTOWN EXPRESS AIRLINES USA DRAGONAIR HDA KA Hong Kong DRUK AIR DRK KB Bhutan EAGLE AIRLINES USA - Minnesota EAS - EUROPE AIRLINES EYT EY France EAST WEST EUROPEAN AIR SERVICES EWE Bulgaria EAST-WEST AIRLINES EWA 4S India EASTERN CARIBBEAN AIRLINES Antigua & Barbuda EASTWIND USA EBA FRANCE EBA ITALY ECUATORIANA EEA EU Ecuador EGYPTAIR MSR MS Egypt EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES ELY LY Israel EMERY WORLDWIDE AIRLINES EWW EB USA - Ohio EMIRATES AIRLINES UAE EK United Arab Emirates ENSOR AIR ENR Czech Republic ENTEBBE AIR SERVICES Uganda ENTERPRISE AIRWAYS UK ESTRELLAS DEL AIRE ETA Mexico ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES ETH ET Ethiopia EURALAIR INTERNATIONAL EUL RN France EURO ATLANTIC AIR Gambia EURO-PACIFIC AIR USA - California EUROBELGIAN AIRLINES EBA BQ Belgium EUROBERLIN EEB EE Germany EUROCYPRIA AIRLINES ECA Cyprus EUROFLY SpA EEZ Italy EUROPEAN AIR TRANSPORT BCS QY Belgium EUROPEAN AIRCHARTER UK EUROPEAN AIRLIFT EAL Belgium EUROPEAN AIRLINES FRO Belgium EUROWINGS EUW NS Germany EVA AIRWAYS EVA BR Taiwan EVEREST AIR Nepal EVERGREEN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES EIA EZ USA - Oregon EXCALIBUR AIRWAYS EXC UK EXPORT AIR DEL PERU EXD Peru EXPRESS ONE LHN EO USA - Texas FALCON AIRLINES Macedonia FALCON AVIATION FCN IH Sweden FAR EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT FEA EF Taiwan FAST AIR CHILE FST UD Chile FAUCETT PERU CFP CF Peru FEDERAL AIRLINES USA FEDERAL EXPRESS FDX FM USA - Tennessee FINE AIR USA - Florida FINNAIR FIN AY Finland FINNAVIATION FAV FA Finland FLASH AIRLINES FSH Nigeria FLIGHT WEST AIRLINES FWQ YC Australia FLORIDA WEST AIRLINES FWL RF USA - Florida FORTUNAIR CANADA Canada FORTUNE AVIATION FOR Italy FREEDOM AIR USA - Kentucky FRONTIER AIRLINES USA FUNWORLD INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS USA FUTURA HUA FH Spain GAMBIA AIRWAYS GAW CK Gambia GARUDA INDONESIA GIA GA Indonesia GAS AIR NGS GR Nigeria GATARI AIR SERVICE Indonesia GB AIRWAYS GBL GT UK GEORGIA AIR Czech Republic GERMAN TOURISTIC AIRLINES Germany GERMANIA GMI Germany GHANA AIRWAYS GHA GH Ghana GLOBAIR USA GOLDEN HORN AVIATION Turkey GRAND AIRWAYS USA - Nevada GRAND EUROPEAN AIRWAYS UK GREAT AMERICAN AIRWAYS GRA USA - Nevada GREAT CHINA AIRLINES IF Taiwan GREAT WESTERN AIR USA - California GREENAIR GRN WK Turkey GULF AIR GFA GF Bahrain GUYANA AIRWAYS GYA GY Guyana HAIFA AIRLINES Israel HAINAN AIRLINES CHH H4 China HAITI TRANS AIR HTC TV Haiti HANAIR 8F Haiti HAPAG LLOYD FLUG HLF HF Germany HARCO AIR HCO Nigeria HAWAIIAN AIR HAL HA USA - Hawaii HEAVYLIFT CARGO AIRLINES HLA NP UK HEAVYLIFT VOLGA-DNEPR UK HEMUS AIR HMS Bulgaria HIGHLAND EUROPEAN UK HISPANIOLA AIRWAYS HIS ZS USA - Florida HOLD TRADE AIR SERVICES Nigeria HORIZON AIR QXE QX USA - Washington HUNGARIAN UKRAINIAN HEAVYLIFT HUK Hungary HUNTING CARGO AIRLINES ABR AG UK IBERIA IBE IB Spain ICELANDAIR ICE FI Iceland IMPALA AIR CARGO IPL South Africa IMPERIAL AIR Peru IMPERIAL AIRLINES Bermuda IMPERIAL CARGO AIRLINES IMG Ghana INDEPENDENT AIR FREIGHTERS Australia INDIAN AIRLINES IAC IC India INTERAMERICA Mexico INTERAMERICANA CARGO VENEZUELA IIA Venezuela INTERANDINA DE AVIACION Colombia INTERCONTINENTAL Peru INTERCONTINENTAL COLOMBIA ICT RS Colombia INTERNATIONAL CARGO XPRESS ICX 2C USA INTERSTATE AIRLINES Nigeria IRAN AIR IRA IR Iran IRAN AIR TOURS IRB Iran IRAN ASSEMAN AIRLINES IRC Iran IRAQI AIRWAYS IAW IA Iraq IRISH AIRWAYS Ireland ISLENA AVIACION WC Colombia ISTANBUL AIRLINES IST IL Turkey ITAPEMIRIM TRANSPORTES AEREO Brazil JAPAN AIR CHARTER JAZ JZ Japan JAPAN AIR SYSTEM JAS JD Japan JAPAN AIRLINES JAL JL Japan JAPAN ASIA AIRWAYS JAA EG Japan JAPAN TRANSOCEAN SWL NU Japan JARO Romania JAT YUGOSLAV AIRLINES JAT JU Serbia JAZ AIR USA - Texas JD VALENCIANA Venezuela JERSEY EUROPEAN AIRWAYS JEA JY UK JET AIRWAYS 9W India JET CARGO JCL Netherlands JET FLEET INTERNATIONAL USA - Texas JET WEST AIRLINES USA - Nevada KABO AIR QNK KO Nigeria KAMPUCHEA AIRLINES VJ Kampuchea KELOWNA FLIGHTCRAFT AIR CHARTER KFA Canada KENYA AIRWAYS KQA KQ Kenya KISH AIR Iran KITTY HAWK AIR CARGO KHA KR USA - Texas KIWI INTERNATIONAL AIR LINES KP USA - New Jersey KLM KLM KL Netherlands KLM CITYHOPPER KLM KL Netherlands KOREAN AIR KAL KE Korea KUWAIT AIRWAYS KAC KU Kuwait L'AEROPOSTALE ARP France LAB - LLOYD AEREO BOLIVIANO LAB LB Bolivia LAC COLOMBIA LIC LC Colombia LACSA LRC LR Costa Rica LADE LDE LD Argentina LADECO AIRLINES LCO UC Chile LAKER AIRWAYS (BAHAMAS) 7Z Bahamas LAM LAM TM Mozambique LAN CHILE LAN LA Chile LAO AVIATION LAO QV Laos LAP LAP PZ Paraguay LAPA LPR MJ Argentina LASER Venezuela LAUDA AIR LDA NG Austria LAUDA AIR SpA LDI Italy LEISURE AIR LWD L8 USA - D.C. LEISURE INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS ULE UK LIBERIA WORLD AIRLINES LWA LE Belgium LIBERTY AIRLINES USA - Florida LIBYAN ARAB AIRLINES LAA LN Libya LINA CONGO GCB GC Congo LIONAIR South Africa LOT POLISH AIRLINES LOT LO Poland LTC Cuba LTE LTE XO Spain LTU LTU LT Germany LTU SUD LTS LU Germany LUFTHANSA DLH LH Germany LUFTHANSA CARGO AIRLINES GEC LH Germany LUFTHANSA CITYLINE DLT DW Germany LUFTHANSA EXPRESS Germany LUNAR AIRLINES India LUSO CANADIAN AIRLINES Canada LUXAIR LGL LG Luxembourg From news Wed Feb 14 05:28:55 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!newsmaster From: 100625.1633@compuserve.com (Patrick Baudis) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Airlines codes - text version 3/4 Date: 14 Feb 1996 01:43:49 -0800 Organization: Patrick BAUDIS Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4fsasl$4nf@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> References: <4fps16$o1n@dub-news-svc-3.compuserve.com> Airline 3-digit 2-digit Country Code Code ======================================================================= MACEDONIA AIRLINES Greece MACEDONIA AS MDO M2 Macedonia MAERSK AIR DMA DM Denmark MAERSK AIR LTD BAB BA UK MAHAN AIR Iran MAKUNG AIRLINES GS Taiwan MALAYSIA AIRLINES MAS MH Malaysia MALEV MAH MA Hungary MALMO AVIATION SCHEDULES SCW 6E Sweden MANDALA AIRLINES MDL RI Indonesia MANDARIN AIRLINES MDA AE Taiwan MANX AIRLINES MNX JE UK MARKAIR MRK BF USA - Alaska MARTINAIR HOLLAND MPH MP Netherlands MEA - MIDDLE EAST AIRLINES MEA ME Lebanon MEDITERRANEAN AIRLINES Turkey MERIDIANA SpA ISS IG Italy MERPATI NUSANTARA AIRLINES MNA MZ Indonesia MESA AIRLINES USA - New Mexico META AVIOTRANSPORT MACEDONIA MAM Macedonia MEXICANA AIRLINES MXA MX Mexico MGM GRAND AIR MGM MG USA - California MIAMI AIR INTERNATIONAL MAI GL USA - Florida MIAT - MONGOLIAN AIRLINES OM Mongolia MID PACIFIC CARGO MPA HO USA - Indiana MIDWAY AIRLINES USA - Virginia MIDWEST EXPRESS MEP YX USA - Wisconsin MILLON AIR OXO OX USA - Florida MISTRAL AIR MSA Italy MK AIR CARGO CDO 7G UK MODILUFT M9 India MONARCH AIRLINES MON ZB UK MORNINGSTAR AIR EXPRESS MEI Canada MORRIS AIR MSS KN USA - Utah MOUNT COOK AIRLINE NZM NM New Zealand MTM AVIATION MTM Germany MYANMA AIRWAYS UBA UB Union of Myanmar MYANMAR AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL Union of Myanmar NATIONAL AIRLINES N4 Chile NATIONAL JET SYSTEMS NJS Australia NATIONAL OVERSEAS AIRLINE NOL Egypt NATIONSAIR EXPRESS USA NEW ACS Zaire NEW ACS TANZANIA NEWWEST AIRLINES USA NICA NIS 6Y Ecuador NIGERIA AIRWAYS NGA WT Nigeria NIPPON CARGO AIRLINES NCA KZ Japan NIUE AIRLINES FN New Zealand NOMADS INC. USA - Michigan NORDIC EAST INTERNATIONAL ELN 4F Sweden NORTH AFRICAN CARGO AIRLINES Tunisia NORTH AMERICAN AIRLINES NAO XG USA - New York NORTHWEST AIRLINES NWA NW USA - Minnesota NORWAY AIRLINES Norway NWT AIR NWT NV Canada OASIS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES AAN OB Spain OKADA AIR OKJ Nigeria OLYMPIC AIRWAYS OAL OA Greece OMAN AIR OAS WY Oman OMNI AIR EXPRESS USA - Oklahoma ONUR AIR OHY 8Q Turkey ORIENT AIR Pakistan OVERNIGHT CARGO LTD P.E.G. USA - Oklahoma PACIFIC AIRLINES PIC BL Vietnam PACIFIC CASCADE AIR CARGO USA - Washington PACIFIC EAST ASIA CARGO APQ Philippines PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES Panama PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES PIA PK Pakistan PALAIR MACEDONIAN PMK 3D Macedonia PALMAIR FLIGHTLINE UK PAN AIR LINEAS AEREAS PNR Spain PAN AM CHARTERS USA PANJNAD AVIATION Pakistan PATRIOT AIRLINES PAA USA - California PEGASUS AIRLINES PGT Turkey PELITA AIR SERVICE PAS EP Indonesia PEOPLES AIRWAYS Lebanon PHILIPPINE AIR LINES PAL PR Philippines PHOENIX AVIATION PLP UK PLUNA PUA PU Uruguay POLAR AIR CARGO USA - California POLYNESIAN AIRLINES PAO PH Western Samoa PORTUGALIA PGA NI Portugal POS MALAYSIA Malaysia PREMIAIR Denmark PRESIDENTIAL AIR USA PRESTIGO AEREO FLETES Bahamas PRIDE AFRICAN INTERNATIONAL PAI Zaire PRIVATE JET EXPEDITIONS PJE 5J USA - Georgia PUEBLA AIRLINES PUNTAVIA Djibouti PWA CORPORATION Canada QANTAS AIRWAYS QFA QF Australia QATAR AIRWAYS Qatar QUASSAR DE MEXICO Mexico RACE CARGO AIRLINES ACE UK REAL AVIATION Ghana RED SEA AIR REEVE ALEUTIAN AIRWAYS RVV RV USA - Alaska REGAL BAHAMAS Bahamas REGION AIR RGA 7S Singapore RENO AIR ROA QQ USA - Nevada RICH INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS RIA JN USA - Florida RIO SUL SRL SL Brazil ROADWAY GLOBAL AIR USA - Indiana ROMAVIA RMV VQ Romania ROSS AVIATION ROS ZD USA - New Mexico ROYAL AFRICAN AIRWAYS RLM ROYAL AIR CAMBODGE Kampuchea ROYAL AIR MAROC RAM AT Morocco ROYAL BRUNEI AIRLINES RBA BI Brunei ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES RJA RJ Jordan ROYAL NEPAL AIRLINES RNA RA Nepal ROYAL STAR AIRWAYS India ROYAL SWAZI AIRWAYS RSN ZC Swaziland ROYAL TONGA AIR HRH WR RYAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES RYN HS USA - Kansas RYANAIR RYR FR Ireland SABENA SAB SN Belgium SAETA SET EH Ecuador SAFAIR SFR FA South Africa SAFFIRAN AIRLINES SFN Iran SAGA AIRWAYS Norway SAHA AIRLINE Iran SAHARA INDIA S2 India SAHSA SHA SH Honduras SAM COLOMBIA SAM MM Colombia SAN ECUADOR SAN WB Ecuador SARO ARILINES SRO UF Mexico SAS - SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM SAS SK Sweden SATENA NSE ZT Colombia SAUDIA SDI SV Saudia Arabia SCHON AIR Pakistan SCIBE AIRLIFT ZAIRE SBZ ZM Zaire SEABOARD AIRLINES Australia SEAGREEN AIR TRANSPORT ESA Antigua SEMPATI AIR SSR SG Indonesia SERVICIOS AEREOS AMAZONICAS Peru SERVICIOS AEROLINEAS MEXICANAS Mexico SERVIVENSA VC Venezuela SHABAIR SHB SS Zaire SHAHEEN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES SAL Pakistan SHANGHAI AIRLINES CSH SH China SHENZEN AIRLINES 4G China SHOROUK AIR 7Q Egypt SHUTTLE AMERICA USA SICHUAN AIRLINES CSC 3U China SIERRA NATIONAL AIRLINES LJ Sierra Leone SIERRA PACIFIC AIRLINES SPA SI USA - Arizona SILANGAN AIRWAYS Philippines SILKAIR SQA MI Singapore SINGAPORE AIRLINES SIA SQ Singapore SK AIR Thailand SKY AIR CARGO TAW UK SKY KING USA SKYDEC CARGO Zaire SKYJET Belgium SKYWAYS JZ Sweden SKYWEST AIRLINES SKW OO USA - Utah SOBELAIR SLR Belgium SOLOMON AIRLINES SOL IE Solomon Islands SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS SAA SA South Africa SOUTH EAST EUROPEAN AIRLINES 6J Greece SOUTHEAST EXPRESS AIRLINES USA SOUTHERN AIR TRANSPORT SJM SJ USA - Florida SOUTHWEST AIRLINES SWA WN USA - Texas SPANAIR SPP JK Spain SPIRIT AIRLINES SWG NK USA - Florida SPROTSFLIGHT AIRWAYS USA STAR AIRLINES EXPRESS USA STAR ASIA AIRWAYS Philippines STARWELT South Africa STERLING EUROPEAN AIRLINES SUDAN AIRWAYS SUD SD Sudan SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES SCX SY USA - Minnesota SUN D'OR INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES Israel SUN JET INTERNATIONAL USA - Florida SUNBIRD AIRWAYS USA SUNEXPRESS SXQ XQ Turkey SUNQUEST AIRWAYS USA - Illinois SURINAM AIRWAYS SLM PY Surinam SWISSAIR SWR SR Switzerland SYRIAN ARAB AIRLINES SYR RB Syria TAAG ANGOLA AIRLINES DTA DT Angola TABA TAB TT Brazil TACA INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES TAI TA El Salvador TACV CABO VERDE VR Cape Verde Islands TAESA TEJ GD Mexico TAINO AIRLINES SM Switzerland TAM - LINHA AEREA REGIONAL TAM KK Brazil TAME TAE EQ Ecuador TAMPA COLOMBIA SA TPA QT Colombia TAP AIR PORTUGAL TAP TP Portugal TAROM ROT RO Romania TAS AIRWAYS TTS TJ Italy TAT EUROPEAN AIRLINES TAT IJ/IO France TATRA AIR QS Slovak Republic TEA BASEL TSW BH Switzerland TEA CYPRUS Cyprus TEA ITALIA TEI Italy THAI FREIGHTER SERVICES TFS Thailand THAI INTERNATIONAL THA TG Thailand TIKAL JET CARGO USA - Florida TING TAI AIR USA - Arizona TMA - TRANS MEDITERRANEAN AIRWAYS TMA TL Lebanon TNT Australia TOWER AIR TOW FF USA - New York TRADEWINDS INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS WRN WI USA - North Carolina TRANS AMERICAN CHARTER USA - Illinois TRANS ARABIAN AIR TRANSPORT Sudan TRANS CARGA Costa Rica TRANS SAHEL AIRLINES Nigeria TRANSAFRIK Sao Tome TRANSALSACE JLS WU France TRANSASIA AIRLINES TNA GE Taiwan TRANSAVIA AIRLINES TRA HV Netherlands TRANSBRASIL TBA TR Brazil TRANSKEI AIRWAYS TAK KV South Africa TRANSLIFT AIRWAYS TLA T7 Ireland TRANSMED AIRLINES TMD MT Egypt TRANSORIENT AIRWAYS USA TRANSPORTES AEREOS BOLIVIANOS BOL Bolivia TRANSTAR SL USA - Florida TRANSWAY AIR INTERNATIONAL NJA UK TRANSWEDE GMP TQ Sweden TRIAX AIRLINES Nigeria TRINITY AIR BAHAMAS T6 Bahamas TUNIS AIR TAR TU Tunisia TUNISIAN BELGIAN AIR Belgium TUR EUROPEAN AIRWAYS TCT YI Turkey TURKISH AIRLINES THY TK Turkey TWA TWA TW USA - New York UGANDA AIRLINES UGA QU Guatemala ULTIMATE AIR USA ULTRAIR ULT RL USA - Tennessee ULYSSAIR CANADA Canada UNITAIR UN Cameroon UNITED AIRLINES UAL UA USA - Illinois UNITED ALIM AIRLINES Egypt UNITED EUROPEAN AIRWAYS Turkey UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UPS 5X USA - Kentucky US-AFRICA AIRWAYS USAIR USA US USA - Virginia USAIR SHUTTLE USA US USA - New York From news Wed Feb 14 05:28:55 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!newsmaster From: 100625.1633@compuserve.com (Patrick Baudis) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Airlines codes - text version 4/4 Date: 14 Feb 1996 01:44:58 -0800 Organization: Patrick BAUDIS Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4fsauq$4od@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> References: <4fps16$o1n@dub-news-svc-3.compuserve.com> Airline 3-digit 2-digit Country Code Code ======================================================================= VALUJET AIRLINES 5J USA - Georgia VARDAR AIR BAA Macedonia VARIG VRG RG Brazil VARSA Mexico VASP VSP VP Brazil VENUS AIRLINES VNS Greece VIA - VARNA INTERNATIONAL AIR VIM VL Bulgaria VIASA VIA VA Venezuela VIETNAM AIRLINES HVN VN Vietnam VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS VIR VS UK VIRGIN ISLANDS PARADISE AIRWAYS USA VIRUNGA AIR CHARTER VISCOUNT AIR SERVICES USA - California VIVA AIR VIV FV Spain WESTERNWORLD AIRLINES Canada WORLD AIR NETWORK WAC WL Japan WORLD AIRWAYS WOA WO USA - Virginia WUHAN AIRLINES CWU China XIAMEN AIRLINES CXA MF China YEMENIA IYE IY Yemen YUNNAN AIRLINES CYH CA China YVIC AIRLINES Nigeria ZAMBIA AIRWAYS ZAC QZ Zambia ZAS AIRLINE OF EGYPT ZAS ZA Egypt ZHEJIANG AIRLINES CJG China ZHONGYUAN AIRLINES CYN China ZHUHAI AIRLINES China ZOROASTRO Mexico ZULIANA DE AVIACION ULA OD USA - Florida Airline 3-digit 2-digit Country Code Code ======================================================================= Airlines of the CIS and Baltic states ======================================================================= ABAKAN AVIA ABG Russia AEROBALT SERVICES Russia AEROFLOT RUSSIAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES AFL SU Russia AEROLEASING UKRAINE Ukraine AEROLIK Russia AEROLITH Russia AEROMOT Russia AEROSERVICE KAZAKHSTAN AVZ Kazakhstan AEROVOLGA Russia AIR MOLDOVA MLD 9U Moldavia AIR PAVELONIK Russia AIR RUSSIA RUS IN Russia AIR TRANSPORT SCHOOL AIS Russia AIR UKRAINE UKR 6U Ukraine AJAKS Russia AJT AIR INTERNATIONAL TRJ Russia AKHAL AVIA AKH Turkmenistan AKS AERO Russia AKTA AIRLINE Russia ALAK LSV Russia ALFA Russia ALIS Russia AMUR AVIANTRANS AAX Russia ANTAU Ukraine ANTK Russia ARBET INETRNATIONAL AIRLINE Russia ARCHANGELSK AVIATION CONCERN Russia ARMENIAN AIRLINES RME R3 Armenia ASA SPB Russia ATLANT ATG Ukraine ATRUVERA AUV Russia AVCOM Russia AVEKO Ukraine AVIACOR Russia AVIAL RLC Russia AVIAPRIMA SOCHI AIRLINES PRL Russia AVIAROSS RAR Russia AVIASTAR Russia AVIATRANS VAS Russia AVIA URAL Russia AZAMAT AZB Kazakhstan AZERBAIJAN AIRLINES AHY J2 Azerbaijan BAIKAL AIRLINES Russia BAIKALAVIA BKL Russia BALTIC INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES BIA TI Latvia BASHKIRAN AIRLINES BTC Russia BELAIR BLI Belarus BALAVIA BRU B2 Belarus BETA-IR Russia BLAGOVESCHENSK AIR UNIT Russia BORONEZK AVIA Ukraine BOSFOR-V Russia BURYAT AVIA Russia BUSOL AIR CO. Russia BYKOVO AIR CONCERN Russia C-AIR Russia CARGO UKRANIAN AIRLINES Ukraine CASCADE AIRWAYS Russia CELINOGRAD UNTIED AIR DETACHMENT Kazakhstan CENTRAL REGIONS CAD Russia CELYABINSK AVIA Russia COLUMBUS AVIA Ukraine COMBI AIRLINES Russia CRIMEA AIRLINES Ukraine CRYM AVIA Ukraine DACONO AIR Russia DAKA Kazakhstan DALAERO Russia DALAVIA DIAMOND AIR DOBROLET AIRLINES DOB Russia DOCAS Ukraine DOMODEDOVO ASSOCIATION OF CIVIL AVIATION Russia ELF AIR EFR E6 Russia ELISTA UNITED AIR DETACHMENT Russia ELK ESTONIAN AIR ELK ES Estonia EMERCOM Russia EOL COMPANY Russia EREVAN AVIATION Armenia ERKER AIRLINES Latvia ESTONIAN AIRLINES ELL OV Estonia EXPARC EPA Russia FAR EASTERN AVIATION CORPORATION Russia GOLDEN STAR Russia GOMEL AIR DETACHMENT Belarus GORIZONT Russia ICPI AIRLINES Ukraine IKAR Russia IMPULSE AERO IMR Russia INTERFREIGHT Russia INTOURTRANS 9B Russia INVERSIA AIR INV Latvia IRON DRAGONFLY IDF Russia JUZ MAASHAVIA Ukraine KAGALIM AVIA KGL Russia KALINGRAD AVIATION DETACHMENT Russia KAMCHATAVIA Russia KANATTAR Kirgizstan KAZAKHSTAN AIRLINES KZA K4 Kazakhstan KAZAN AVIATION Russia KHARKOV AMALGAMATED AVIATION Ukraine KHABAROVSK AVIATION Russia KHAZAR KHR Turkmenistan KHORS AIR KHO Ukraine KIEV UNITED Ukraine KIROV AVIA Russia KIT - COSMOS TRANSPORT Russia KLJUTSCH AVIA Russia KMZ Ukraine KOLYMA AVIA Russia KOMI AVIA Russia KONTAKT AVIA SALAMANDRA Ukraine KORSAR AVIA KRS 6K Russia KRAI AERO KIO Russia KRASNOYARSKAVIA KJC Russia KRECHET Russia KRYLATAYA RUS Russia KRYLO Russia KURGAN AVIA Russia KUSTANAI UNITED AIR DETACHMENT Kazakhstan KYRGYZSTAN AIRLINES KGA K2 Kirgizstan LATAVIO LATVIAN AIRLINES LTL PV Latvia LATCHARTER LTC Latvia LEBAP LEB Turkmenistan LENSIBAVIA Russia LIANA Russia LIETUVA KLA TT Lithuania LII Russia LITHUANIAN AIRLINES LIL TE Lithuania LVOV AVIATION ENTERPRISE Ukraine MAGADAN AVIATION CONCERN MAK Russia MALS Russia MIATCHKOVSKOE AVIATION ENTERPRISE Russia MIL-AVIA Russia MINERALOVODSKOE PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION Russia MOSCOW AIRWAYS MSC SU Russia MURMANSK AIR TRANSPORT ENTERPRISE Russia MYS-KAMENNY CIVIL AVIATION Russia NADYM NDM Russia NEBO NBO Russia NEFTEYUGANSK AIR TRANSPORT NFT Russia NERYUNGRY SAKHA CORP Russia NORTH AMERICAN AEROFLOT CORP NORTH EAST CARGO AIRLINES MGD Russia ORBI GEORGIAN AIRWAYS DVU NQ Georgia OREL-AVIA OAU HQ Russia PANH Russia PARTNER Russia PAVEL BORISKENO AIRLINES Russia PERM AVIA Russia PILOT Russia POLAR AIR COMPANY JPC Russia POLISE-AIR Russia POLYOT Russia POLYOT FLIGHT Russia PRAGMA Russia PROGRESS Russia PSKOV AVIA Russia R.A.F. AVIA MTL Latvia RESOLA Russia RIGA AIRLINES RIG GV Latvia RUSLAN ANTONOV ADB Ukraine SAKHAVIATRANS Russia SALPA AIR TRANSPORT RUSSIA Russia SAMARA AIRLINE Russia SAVIA Russia SAYAKHAT SAH Kazakhstan SHONKAR Russia SIBAVIA SBI Russia SIBERIAN WINGS Russia SOLAR WIND Russia SOUTHERN AIRLINES Russia SPAIR PAR Russia SPA AERO Ukraine SPECIAL CARGO AIRLINES SCI Russia SPECIAL CIVIL AVIATION DIVISION Russia ST. PETERSBURG AVIATION DETACHMENT Russia STERKH Russia STELA Russia STIGL Tschetschen STRIM Russia SVERDLOVSK AVIATION AGENCY Russia TAJIK AIR TZK 7J Tajikistan TATARSTAN AIRLINES Russia TESIS TIS Russia TIM AIR Russia TOUCH & GO AIRLINES TUG Russia TRANSAERO TSO 4J Russia TRANSAIR GEORGIA Georgia TRANS AIR VALEOLOGIA VLG Moldavia TRANS AVIA Ukraine TRANS AVIA EXPORT TXC Belarus TRANSEAST AIRLINES Latvia TRANSSUPER Russia TROYKA AIR TKA TURKMENISTAN AIRLINES TUA Turkmenistan TYUMEN AIRLINES TYM Russia TYUMEN AVIATRANS TMN Russia UKHTA AVIA Russia UKRAINE AIR ALLIANCE Ukraine UKRAINE INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES UKR PS Ukraine URAL AVIALI URL Russia URALINETRAVIA URA Russia URALS CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT Russia UZBEKISTAN AIRWAYS UZB HY Uzbekistan VEGA AIR CARRIER Russia VERTICAL T Russia VETERAN AIRLINES Russia VIA VIKTOR AIRLINES VKT Russia VITYAS VTZ Russia VLADIVOSTOK AIR UNIT Russia VNUKOVO AIRLINES Russia VOLGA AVIA Russia VOLGA - DNEPR VDA VI Russia YAK AIR SERVICE Russia YAKUTAVIA IKT Russia YUGTRANSAVIA Ukraine YUZHNOYE Ukraine Leasing Companies ====================================================================== AEROLEASE INTERNATIONAL INC AERON AVIATION CORP AERONAUTICS LEASING INC AIRFLEET CREDIT CORPORATION AIR FRANCE PARTNAIRS LEASING NV ANSETT WORLDWIDE AVIATION SERVICES ATASCO USA INC AVIATION LEASING GROUP AVIATION SALES COMPANY BAVARIA FLUGGESELLSCHAFT BLENHEIM AVIATION INC BOULLIOUN AVIATION SERVICES INC C ITOH AEROSPACE FINANCE CORP CORSAIR INC ELECTRA AVIATION LIMITED EXATCO LTD GATX AIR GATX CL AIR GECC GPA AIRBUS LTD GPA FOKKER 100 LTD GPA GROUP PLC INTERCREDIT CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL AIRCRAFT SERVICES INTERNATIONAL AIR LEASES INC ILFC IRISH AEROSPACE JAPAN FLEET SERVICE - SINGAPORE PTE KAWASAKI LEASING LUFTHANSA LEASING MITSUI & COMPANY LTD ORIX AVIATION SYSTEMS LTD PEGASUS CAPITAL CORP PLM INTERNATIONAL LNC POLARIS AIRCRAFT LEASING CORPORATION POTOMAC CAPITAL LEASING GROUP From news Fri Feb 16 23:18:05 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: 757 flight recorder located Date: 16 Feb 1996 13:41:57 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> News item in the newspaper today (Feb 16) said that the flight recorder from the Alas/Birgenair 757 had been located on the seabed 12 miles away from the Dominican Republic. They can now get on with the business of recovery via robot submarine. RNA From news Fri Feb 16 23:50:35 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: Tom Speer Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY? Date: 16 Feb 1996 14:19:23 -0800 Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4eo4je$t59@rcp6.elan.af.mil> References: <4e132t$o0d@news.bu.edu> <4ei0eh$v4@news.euro.net> <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: >... >On the other hand, Samsung and the Chinese seem determined to build the >AE100, despite the fact that it has a snowball's chance in hell of being >an economic success and will simply end up adding more capacity to an >industry that already has far too much. >... I believe there's a lot more here than the AE100. Samsung is licence building F-16's at Sacheon. In Changwon, Daewoo is getting a very educational experience (to say the least) in their effort to develop the KTX-1 trainer. Korea is determined to build an indigenous aerospace industry to compete with the Japanese and other Pacific rim countries. They will not be content to be subcontractors. Their efforts to produce new designs from scratch are showing them just how much they have to learn and how valuable is the expertise of those that have designed aircraft before. They know that the KTX-1, a turboprop military trainer, is entering an already over crowded field that will be dominated in the future by the Swiss PC9/Beech MkII that was selected for the USAF JPATS competition. Yet, they persist because they view it as an essential learning experience. The AE100 may be in the same category. Placed in this light, a Fokker acquisition would be a major strategic advance for Samsung. It gives them the expertise they need and leapfrogs them over Daewoo (who also builds major parts of the F-16). It turns a potential competitor into a production asset for them. One prize in all this might be the KTX-2, a supersonic military trainer. Not only will the ROK Air Force need such an airplane, once the T-38 is finally put out to pasture, there may not be anyone else that has developed a supersonic trainer on the market. Bottom line is, you can't underestimate the Korean determination to be a player in aerospace, civil and military. Profit may well be the least of their motivations at this point. Cheers, Tom Speer From news Sat Feb 17 00:44:25 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!american.edu!JW6191A From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 747 / Air Force 1 Question Date: 16 Feb 1996 15:38:34 -0800 Organization: The American University Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <1772E775DS86.JW6191A@american.edu> References: <4erdas$lf2@kragar.kei.com> <4f8id2$i2c@kragar.kei.com> <4f8oc8$t0i@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <4fuo5c$72n@feenix.metronet.com> In article <4fuo5c$72n@feenix.metronet.com> olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) writes: >The Airforce operates 707s, 737s, 747s and DC9s, and NASA has operated >just about everything else other than the five mentioned. Speaking of U.S. Air Force 747s, when I was once on an Air Force One hangar and plane tour, I heard some story about an extra window that had been installed next to the desk where the President sits so that he (she?) could have a view. I believe the fuselage was otherwise windowless in that vicinity. Apparently, this was a simple-looking fix that ended up being a major engineering feat to pull off. I never did get the full story. Any Boeing-heads know anything more about this? From news Sat Feb 17 00:44:27 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!american.edu!JW6191A From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Request: Complete List of Aircraft Storage Locations Date: 16 Feb 1996 15:39:14 -0800 Organization: The American University Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <1772E7AC3S86.JW6191A@american.edu> References: <4f8c4r$i2c@kragar.kei.com> <4funcj$72n@feenix.metronet.com> There are always references to aircraft "parked in the desert" for storage. Could somebody please post a complete list of where the major storage facilities are, whether they're open for tours, what kinds of aircraft are there, etc.? Thanks! From news Sun Feb 18 01:27:32 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 747 / Air Force 1 Question Date: 18 Feb 1996 00:15:15 -0800 Organization: Your Organization Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4g51kf$343@opal.southwind.net> References: <4erdas$lf2@kragar.kei.com> <4f8id2$i2c@kragar.kei.com> <4f8oc8$t0i@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <4fuo5c$72n@feenix.metronet.com> <1772E775DS86.JW6191A@american.edu> X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6 In article <1772E775DS86.JW6191A@american.edu>, JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) says: > >In article <4fuo5c$72n@feenix.metronet.com> >olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) writes: > >>The Airforce operates 707s, 737s, 747s and DC9s, and NASA has operated >>just about everything else other than the five mentioned. > >Speaking of U.S. Air Force 747s, when I was once on an Air Force One >hangar and plane tour, I heard some story about an extra window that had >been installed next to the desk where the President sits so that he >(she?) could have a view. I believe the fuselage was otherwise >windowless in that vicinity. Apparently, this was a simple-looking >fix that ended up being a major engineering feat to pull off. I never >did get the full story. > >Any Boeing-heads know anything more about this? I worked for Boeing Wichita as a structures engineer part time on the AF1 project, but do not remember anything about an extra window. The plane was built in Seattle and sent to Wichita for modification and installation of the interior. There are two AF1's; virtually identical 747-200s. The major engineering feat was when the FAA reclassified the lower lobe area of the plane (the forward baggage compartment) as accessible in flight due to the fact that it is used for ground entrance using airstairs. This caused additional fire extinguishing systems to be added. From news Mon Feb 19 17:58:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics.simulation,rec.aviation.military Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: j.w.mcmanus@larc.nasa.gov (John McManus) Subject: High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Conference Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 15:17:41 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu NASA is sponsoring the High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Conference to be held September 17-19, 1996 at the NASA Langley Research Center. This conference will provide a national forum (restricted to US citizens) to discuss high-angle-of-attack technology issues in the design of future highly agile military aircraft. There are four primary objectives to this conference: (1) Report final results of the NASA High-Alpha Technology Program (HATP); (2) Discuss results of other National programs; (3) Summarize high-alpha technology "Lessons-Learned"; and (4) Discuss future directions for research in high-performance military aircraft. A broad spectrum of research results will be presented from generic studies as well as from leading NASA, DOD, and industry fighter technology programs. It is envisioned that the discussion of future directions will involve NASA, DOD, ARPA, and industry, and will encourage opportunities for future collaboration. Conference information including the call for papers is available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.larc.nasa.gov/org/conf/ [Moderator's note: This is going to be a good one, folks. I hope to go myself and I highly recommend it. MFS] Information can also be obtained by contacting: Mr. James R. Burley II Deputy Leader, High-Performance & High-Speed Aircraft Office NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop 265 Hampton, Va. 23681-0001 FAX: 804-864-8291 EMAIL: j.r.burley@larc.nasa.gov From news Tue Feb 20 01:00:12 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: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Request: Complete List of Aircraft Storage Locations Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Feb 1996 05:25:24 GMT Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/488-2590 - 817/571-0400)) Approved: olesen@metronet.com Message-ID: <4gbm04$pjv@feenix.metronet.com> References: <4f8c4r$i2c@kragar.kei.com> <4funcj$72n@feenix.metronet.com> <1772E7AC3S86.JW6191A@american.edu> John Witherspoon (JW6191A@american.edu) wrote: : : There are always references to aircraft "parked in the desert" for : storage. Could somebody please post a complete list of where the major : storage facilities are, whether they're open for tours, what kinds : of aircraft are there, etc.? Thanks! The major storage facilities are at Marana Air Park (Arizona) and Movave (California). Some storage has also been available at LAS, AMA, TUS, and OKC. The big military storage facility is at Davis-Monthan in Tucson, and -is- open for tours on certain days of the month. Their phone number is 1-520-750-3358 (recorded info). There are only former military aircraft and a few scrapped 707s at this facility. No WWII aircraft left anymore, but a few of the museums nearby do have some. Mohave is the only commercial storage facility that is a) accessable to the public and b) offers tours. The facility was recently toured by two of the co-moderators plus one other major contributor who flew us there in a private chartered 777... (OK, it was a Dutchess, but the N number had '777' in it!), and is currently at a low for storage. 2 new MD11's being prepped for delivery to the Royal Saudi family, three ex-BA L1011's being converted into freighters, the entire US BAe146 fleet, a ex-CO DC10 and A300, plus a few white-tail 747-100s and -200s. In the scrap heap were a HP 747-200, several ex-PA 727s, some ex-EA DC9s and 727s, several ex-CO 727-100s and 737-100s, plus the TW CV880 fleet and a lone CV990. Tours are ad-hoc, and done by the security guard/fueler in his spare time. The cost is $10.00 per van, and tips are quite welcome (especially if you want to see the good stuff!). No reservations are taken, and tour availability is never guaranteed. Marana is operated by Evergreen Int'l, and is closed to the public. Most of the AA and UA mothballed DC10-10s are here, as are several of the ex-PA 747s. Its been three years since I was there last, so I can't really tell you what else is there. The only way that you can visit is to fly over the storage facility. There -are- flight operations at Marana, so don't expect to be able to see too much... E -- | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives is now the Website | | olesen@metronet.com | version of Win95 and the Denver Int'l Airport.... | | Fort Worth, Tx | NEW URL ---> http:/www.metronet.com/~olesen | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | From news Sun Feb 25 07:49:55 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Aerospatiele-Dassault shotgun wedding Date: 21 Feb 1996 14:45:29 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna Message-ID: <4gg7a9$no9@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> News (paraphrased from wire reports) The rumors of an impending Dassault-Aerospatiele merger, enforced by the French government, have been proven correct. The French govt today announced today that they would seek to force a merger of Dassault and Aerospatiele in order it said, to create a French defense/aerospace capable of competing with the US firms. The Dassault family currently owns 49.9% of Dassault, and is strongly in favor of keeping the company independent. The French govt owns 45.75% of Dassault, with the rest publically traded. Dassault is only a fourth the size of Aerospatiele, but is profitable, has has almost no debt, and 10 billion francs in cash. 1995 sales amounted to 11.59 billion francs, with a profit of some 198 million francs. Interestingly enough, Aerospatiele, which had 1995 sales of 49 billion francs and is operating at a loss, needs a 10 billion franc "capital injection" immediately. ***** Opinion The interesting thing about this is that even the combined firm won't be remotely close to a match for the US aerospace/defense giants like Boeing, or Lockheed-Martin. The only way Europe could remotely produce such a firm would be a cross-border merger. That, of course, is something no European nation is yet prepared to consider in a serious way. And this is even without considering the tremendous gains the US firms have made in costcutting in recent years, something the French have yet to begin. (49 billion francs is about $10 billion---Lockheed-Martin does in excess of twice that in business a year, and Boeing does close to twice, and probably more this year). I can well understand the Dassault family's feeling about this. The fact that Aerospatiele needs FFR 10 billion in additional capital, and Dassault happens to have that amount in cash seems more than a coincidence. The French govt is strapped for cash--- plundering Dassault to prop up Aerospatiele must seem like an attractive option to the government. It allows France to give Aerospatiele $2 billion without an explicit bailout, by forcing the Dassaults to do it instead. The Dassaults must be angry as hell about the prospect. It will be interesting to see how well they can fight this (perhaps through the European courts?) It's reminiscent of the way that the French govt created a "national champion" by merging Air France with UTA and Air Inter. That didn't fix anything either, and you have to wonder if this will. More likely it will just create a larger, sicker firm, which because of its position as the _sole French aerospace company will be even more sacrosanct during the next crisis, just as Air France was sacrosanct during its past crisis. It's sad to see France making the same mistakes again and again: first Air France, then Credit Lyonais, now Aerospatiele. SNECMA next? RNA From news Mon Feb 26 04:03:47 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!netnews From: Jay Selman Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Photography at JNB and SCL Date: 23 Feb 1996 01:11:47 -0800 Organization: Avion Foto Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4gdln1$kni@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> There is a good chance that I will be visiting Johannesburg SA and Santiago Chile in the coming months to cover air shows for magazines. Does anyone know how easy (or difficult) it might be to take photos of the scheduled airline traffic at those airports during my visit? Please respond to me at: unclejay@aol.com Thanks for your help. -- Jay Selman unclejay@aol.com Standard disclaimers apply Visit the AVION FOTO Home Page at: http://users.aol.com/avfoto/index.htm From news Mon Feb 26 04:03:47 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: Bill Hensley Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 747 / Air Force 1 Question Date: 23 Feb 1996 01:13:11 -0800 Organization: TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4gdkbt$mtn@qns3.qns.com> References: <4erdas$lf2@kragar.kei.com> <4f8id2$i2c@kragar.kei.com> <4g51kf$343@opal.southwind.net> hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) wrote: >There are two AF1's; virtually identical 747-200s. >The major engineering feat was when the FAA reclassified the lower lobe >area of the plane (the forward baggage compartment) as accessible in >flight due to the fact that it is used for ground entrance using >airstairs. This caused additional fire extinguishing systems to be added. Hmmm, the E-4B (another 747-200) is also in-flight accessable in both the forward and aft lower lobes, but I don't recall seeing any additional fire suppression installed (except for the trailing wire antenna). There is a lot of overtemp sensors in the equipment racks, though. Cheers, Bill Hensley email mailto:Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com web http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/Bill_Hensley/ From news Mon Feb 26 04:06:01 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: Andrew Abshier Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Request: Complete List of Aircraft Storage Locations Date: 23 Feb 1996 01:29:10 -0800 Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK Sender: rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <4gcr3j$seh@news.cis.okstate.edu> References: <4f8c4r$i2c@kragar.kei.com> <4funcj$72n@feenix.metronet.com> <1772E7AC3S86.JW6191A@american.edu> <4gbm04$pjv@feenix.metronet.com> olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) wrote: > >The major storage facilities are at Marana Air Park (Arizona) and Movave >(California). Some storage has also been available at LAS, AMA, TUS, and >OKC. Storage at OKC is at a very low level at present. Only an ex-US F-28 and two ex-FAA CV-580s are stored at present. Nearby Ardmore has a aircraft salvage operation where some ex-UA 727-200s and DC-10s have been seen. Grayson County Airport in Sherman, TX, also has an aircraft salvage facility, and until recently some aircraft storage. Andy From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert.Biddle@Comp.VUW.AC.NZ (Robert Biddle) Subject: L1011 Headroom Reasoning... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:36 Organization: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. There was some discussion recently about L1011s, and just now I was reading another thread about conversions between freight and passenger configurations of other aircraft. This reminds me of a question I had long ago about the L1011: When it was launched, a big deal was made about its very spacious headroom in the passenger cabin: it was illustrated in Lockheed advertisements, and I've talked to people who enthused about it. And it seemed spacious to when when I flew on my only L1011 trip (on Air Canada). My question is: how was extra headroom justified? Would it reduce the L1011's cargo capability? Or -- possibly -- improve it? -- -- Robert Biddle, Computer Science, Victoria University of WELLINGTON Internet: Robert.Biddle@Comp.VUW.Ac.NZ NEW ZEALAND Telecom: Voice +64 4 471-5328 ext. 8546; Facsimile +64 4 495-5232 From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:37 In article , etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) wrote: >I've seen a number of MD-11 freighters that seem to have all eight >passenger doors and metal window plugs. I get the impression that the >operators of these aircraft may have wanted something that could be >relatively easily converted to passenger use if the cargo market didn't >pan out. >What about the 747-400F, on the other hand? The 747-400F is not convertable to Pax Operations. There is no equipment installed in the aircraft for passengers. ie no lav facilities on the main deck. no plumming. no seat tracks. no windows etc. If the aircraft were originally converted from pax to cargo then it could be done but not from the factory. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org AME (Canada), A&P, PPASEL HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:37 In article , etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) wrote: >...I'm puzzled about Boeing's decision to use the standard > -100 and -200 upper deck instead of the stretched upper deck used in the > passenger variant. I understand that the SUD probably wouldn't be of > much use in cargo operations. But if a 747-400F operator decided that > the cargo market was not worth pursuing and wanted to convert their > freighters to a passenger configuration, wouldn't putting in the SUD be > an expensive retrofit? The stretched upper deck is not the only thing an operator would have to deal with to convert a freighter to passenger use. There's also the matter of the opening nose, which would be weight and systems the operator would probably like to get rid of, along with the beefed up floor. The truth of the matter is that with the projected growth of the air freight market, there is little probablility of a 747 freighter being converted to passenger use. And the "standard" deck isn't a huge liability- British Airways, for instance, operates 747-100s to Seattle, and the plane fits the load factor almost perfectly right now. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mehren@address.net (Mark Mehren) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AddressNET Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:38 In article , hoffmans@aol.com says... > >Because of structural differences in the aircraft, a 747 freighter with a >SUD would actually be able to carry less cargo volume on the main deck. >hoffmans@aol.com > The MD-11 comes in four flavors: full pass, full cargo, a combi (half freight, half pass, of which Alitalia flies) and then the convertable freighter( pass to cargo or cargo to pass in 96 hours. (Martinair and World Airways own these). Mark Mehren DAC Long Beach From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mjtp Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Montana Internet Cooperative Association Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:39 >I've seen a number of these >as well, and I'm puzzled about Boeing's decision to use the standard >-100 and -200 upper deck instead of the stretched upper deck used in the >passenger variant. Actually it is simple, to reduce weight, because you can't put freight up there, so there is no real use for the strethed upper deck, without it you can carry either more freight or go a little longer distance (I'm sure not much). Jeff From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:39 etech@deltanet.com wrote: >What about the 747-400F, on the other hand? I've seen a number of these >as well, and I'm puzzled about Boeing's decision to use the standard >-100 and -200 upper deck instead of the stretched upper deck used in the >passenger variant. I understand that the SUD probably wouldn't be of >much use in cargo operations. But if a 747-400F operator decided that >the cargo market was not worth pursuing and wanted to convert their >freighters to a passenger configuration, wouldn't putting in the SUD be >an expensive retrofit? Something that you seem to have over looked is that passenger operations are concerned with passenger revenue - the more passengers the merrier, so to speak. Whereas, cargo haulers earn their livings by how much freight they can carry - in weight. Since the upper deck is not much of a benefit in cargo operations, it is unnecessary weight added to the airframe, that could otherwise be saved for an increased payload capacity on the main deck. JCD USAF AVMAINT A&P From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pdaniel@ice.net.au (Paul Daniel) Subject: Protruding "Fin" Marked HOT on A300 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prologic Pty Ltd Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:39 Can anyone satisfy my curiosity please. I was looking at a QANTAS A300 the other day and notice what I'd describe as a type of fin protruding from the fuselage behind the forward cargo door. Can someone tell me what this is please and why it was coloured with orange stripes and marked HOT. What makes it hot? Paul Daniel (pdaniel@ice.net.au) New Norfolk Tasmania Australia From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: An Accelerometer in Paradise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:40 Ronald James Wanttaja (wanttaja@chinook.halcyon.com) wrote: : For the entire travel period, the maximum G level was: : X = 6.167 : Y = 6.889 : Z = 10.10 : These sound high, but remember, most of them are short-lived events with : not much energy in them. It should be noted that I carried a china teapot : in the same suitcase as the EDR (wrapped in bubble wrap); it arrived : unbroken. These sound particularly high when you consider that the maximum g-loading of a B757 is 3g. Approx 3 yrs ago Caledonian severely bent a B757 with a heavy landing of 2.76g. The aircraft took 3 weeks to prepare for a ferry flight from LGW to LHR where the aircraft was repaired over 2/3 months. The work involved including reskin fuselage aft of wing due to ripples and a crack in the crown, new undercarriage and NDT of all mountings ( even for the overhead bins ) -- Ian Judge _|_ ian@judgei.demon.co.uk _____(_)_____ ! ! ! From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andy Zeitlin Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:40 Currently, FAA and industry are developing a new capability called Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) which would broadcast certain parameters in real time, both to nearby aircraft (for collision avoidance, traffic display, or future operational traffic procedures), and potentially to the ground. In the near term, the system probably will use the Mode S data link, which is very limited in its capacity. The messages will carry aircraft position, velocity, direction, identity, but little else. Contrast this to a flight data recorder which tells about engine speeds, flaps, vertical rates, bank, pitch, etc etc. In the longer term, another data link could greatly expand the message contents. However, it doesn't make sense to continuously broadcast info. that rarely will be needed if bandwidth is at all scarce. ATC might make regular use of some data; crashes are rare, even more so where the FDR can't be easily located. Also, the problem of receiving data on the ground implies receivers will be put in place. The problem this thread is discussing mainly applies to a crash far from "civilization"; hence, the low likelihood of finding a receiver there. A better approach might be a satellite-linked path such as ADS-oceanic uses. However, this bandwidth is somewhat limited and expensive. In fact, another satellite, SARSAT, is used internationally for search and rescue; but it couldn't support retrieval of flight data recorder parameters. From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft Order Update (March 3, 1996) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:41 The 1996 update list and the "final" 1995 list are now on the Web. The URL's are http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/order_book.shtml and http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/95_order_book.shtml, respectively. I also have an A330/340 vs. B777 order list of which the URL is http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/a330_b777.shtml I'll still post the update list once a month. Just a reminder: you are welcome to use these lists as a source of reference, but do not rely on them as an authoritative source. As usual, any corrections, comments, and suggestions are welcome. For this update, I have listed the Air China and Thai orders as letters of intent. At this time, it appears that Air China's order of three A340s is actually a part of the six A340s CAAC previously ordered for China Southern. (China Southern refused to take the A340s and ordered six B777s, instead.) *** 1996 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Mar 03, 96) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N|NW | 20C | | | N|TW | | 10P | | N|DL | | 12P | | |8Q | 1U | | | |KL | | 2G | | |GECAS | | 20 2 80 5G | | |UA | | 2P | | |MH | | 10P 15R | | |PR | | 1G | | |BW | 2| | | |GATX | 9C | | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 0 0 20 10 0 2| 20 2 80 0 15 10 12 20 0| 0 0| | 1996 | A I R B U S ( 32 ) | B O E I N G ( 159 ) |MD( 0)| Total by Engine Manufacturers |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| |BMW/RR | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |CFMI | 0 0 20 9 0 2| 20 2 80 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |GEAE | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 0| 0 0| |IAE | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |P&W | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 12 10 12 0 0| 0 0| |R-R | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0| 0 0| |Unknown| 0 0 0 1 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 0 0 20 10 0 2| 20 2 80 0 15 10 12 20 0| 0 0| | 1996 | A I R B U S ( 32 ) | B O E I N G ( 159 ) |MD( 0)| Announced Letters of Intent |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N|TG | 5P 4P | 4 2G 6P | | N|CA | 3| | | |PR | 12C 8G 4| 8G | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 5 0 32 10 12 9| 24 2 80 0 25 10 12 26 0| 0 0| | 1996 | A I R B U S ( 68 ) | B O E I N G ( 179 ) |MD( 0)| 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/R-R, 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). 4 Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@cris.com) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. Airline Code: 8Q - Onur Air BW - BWIA CA - Air China DL - Delta KL - KLM MH - Malaysia NW - Northwest PR - Philippine TG - Thai Int'l TW - Trans World -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mjtp Subject: Re: Q: Joined wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Montana Internet Cooperative Association Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:42 >Do you mean the 777 folding wing? >None have yet been built with the folding wing. It stated in "Airways" that "one of its 'iron bird' static test airframe ('airplane effectivity number' WY997) to prove the validilty of the design, the 2,000lb (900kg) weight penalty of the hydraulics invovled for a folding wing tip has apparently outweighed any concerns regarding lack of airport termanal space." That taken directly from Airways Jul/Aug '95 issue. Jeff From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Dominican Republic 757 crash (RISKS 17.82) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:42 In article Peter G. Neumann writes: >Investigators have concluded their analysis of the 6 Feb 1996 Boeing 757 >flight that ended in the ocean, killing all 189 people aboard. The disaster >was apparently due to a faulty velocity indicator that misled pilots, >leading them to believe that their speed was adequate when they were flying >at 7000 feet. I don't think the investigators have concluded anything--they may have completed their first sweep of the DFDR and CVR recovered earlier this week, but the accident investigation's just starting. More precisely, the comments today suggested that an erroneous speed indication is an issue under investigation. There can be a significant difference between that and saying the indicator is bad. For the "indicator" to be bad, both the pilots' airspeed indicators would need to have failed. And the standby speed indicator. A highly improbable event. The captain and first officer each receive airspeed data from independent air data computers. Each air data computer, in turn, receives data from two independent pitot/static systems, distributed on each side of the aircraft. In the case of an unreliable data source, warning flags appear on their instruments. There are also flags indicating electrical failure and other mechanical faults. The standby system receives its feed from the right auxiliary pitot source: it is "raw" data, not having been massaged by an ADC. I think that we can conclude that simultaneous instrumentation failure is unlikely. For all THREE instruments to fail, clearly, the single source of failure is the loss of the respective pitot input sources or a loss of the system itself. Assuming this is correct, it hails back to the loss of a Northwest Airlines 727-251, near Thiells, New York, on December 1, 1974. In that one, the airplane was on a ferry flight, no passengers. The crew forgot to turn on probe anti-ice, and the sensors iced over. The result was an erroneously high airspeed indication, which resulted in an effort by the crew to pull back on the stick to slow down. The airplane was destroyed. An airline pilot friend recently commented that one of his instructors once said that you need 5000' of altitude to recover from 10 degrees nose-down of pitch in a transport, no matter what the reason. In the Northwest case, the airplane descended some 28,000 feet in 83 seconds, giving an average rate of descent of 20,000 feet per minute. So one obvious question is, could the crew have forgotten to turn on the pitot anti-ice? No: Boeing apparently learned from this, and, on the 757, probe anti-ice is automatically turned on when an engine is is on (this is a broad statement based upon my knowledge of the Eastern build; details like this tend to vary according to the airlines purchasing the airplane). Question #2, could there have been pitot failure without the crew knowing about it? Again, unlikely: there are warning annunciators on the overhead panel. Question #3, could there have been a maintenance fault? Question #4, they were taking off into lousy weather. Maybe they hit sudden and severe icing conditions within the storm? Who knows. The point to all this is that the Dominican Republic's statement raises far more questions than it really answers. As with most crashes, there is not likely to be a single source of failure. -- 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 Mar 7 02:04:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: FMS capability (was: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:42 fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) wrote: >... A complete safety analysis would need to be >done on this function, but if a terrain display based on an NDB update was >to be used as the primary means for avoidance of Controlled Flight Into >Terrain, then the criticiality of the function may be higher than most FMC >computers are certified to. In this configuration, I would presume to >leave the GPWS in as the "belt and suspenders" function due to the >consequences of the failure. >... Terrain display coupled with GPWS will help >flight crews avoid these accidents by providing them information. >However, there are no easy solutions, implementation of this function will >be a significant systems engineering task. If any company tells you >otherwise, hold on to your wallet. I missed the beginning of this thread, but for what it's worth: The latest generation of military airplanes are implementing digital terrain databases as an aid to terraing following, and indeed _could_ do TF entirely based on the digital terrain elevation data. However, if you talk to the Defense Mapping Agency folks that put together the data, they will tell you that the data are NOT, repeat NOT, reliable enough to serve as the sole means of terrain avoidance. This is in part because of the accuracy of the methods used to acquire the data, the size of the cell for which the height information is taken, the lack of information on manmade obstacles, etc. Even if your terrain data were perfect, you also have the problem of knowing exactly where you are in the terrain map. No nav system is perfect, either, so you may be a lot closer to that mountain than the computer says. That being said, terrain maps can be of significant value. In the case of terrain following, they allow the TF system to know what's in the radar shadow cast by the higher terrain in front of the aircraft. They can also be used as a navigation aid by correlating the radar altimeter history trace with the terrain elevation. GPWS will still be necessary for safety. But aiding it with terrain data would help to make it more predictive and provide better safety buffers. Essentially, the uncertaintly in the knowledge of what lies beyond the beam of the radar altimeter (or other GPWS sensor) would go from 100% to a much lower value. It could also be used to present a picture of the terrain to the pilots even when IFR, and this would enhance their situation awareness significantly. Especially if the contours were presented on a HUD, as has been done in research studies. I haven't seen it flight tested on HUD's yet (but it may have been). FLIR imagery has been successfully displayed on a HUD superimposed on the outside scene, and there isn't any difference in principle with displaying the synthesized terrain picture. TS From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:43 In article carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) writes: > > wrote: >>There's no question that Boeing makes a lot of its money from the 747, > >That only happens because the 747 has been around for a long time. >The A3XX is Airbus' self destruction button. >Boeing's own production estimates for the 747 derivatives >look pretty conservative (~25/year). The May 27, 1978 issue of FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL (back when the magazine was actually pretty cool) had a story in which they discussed Boeing's finally having recovered its development and production costs on the 747--at the 400-airplane mark. Even adjusted for inflation, development costs for a new airplane are going to be astronomical, and for anyone to attempt a *new* design is madness, assuming that the development and production costs are to be provided by actual sales of the product. Everyone will lose. And after a bad safety year, I would wonder about the acceptance of the public to a design in which the human loss following a crash would be incomprehensible. -- 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 Mar 7 02:04:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsjames@ix.netcom.com (Gary S. James ) Subject: Re: Northwest and Airbus: good news for A320, more bad news for A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:43 In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >On Monday, Northwest announced an order for 20 Airbus A320 aircraft, >with ten to be delivered in 1998 and 1999. Northwest's fleet already >includes 50 A320s with CFM56-5A1 engines. (The announcement did not >specify Northwest's engine choice but it's unlikely that they would >switch to the IAE V2500.) > (snip) Karl: As you implied there is significantly more to the deal than meets the eye. After having been raked over the coals with the earlier cancellation of the A340 order when NWA was near bankrupcy, it was most likely necessary to defer the 16 A330 FIRM orders that still were on the books with AirBus. With the current route structure of NWA, the A330's don't make too much sense. The 16 A330's were to be powered by P&W's and they hold a lein on the loan. So, it wasn't possible to simply subsitute A320's with CFM's. So they worked out a deal, defer the A330's, take some A320's and also buy hushkits for P&W JT-8D's from P&W instead of some third party. NWA needs the hushkits anyway, as they plan to keep DC-9-30's around for a long time. There are also some 727 hushkits included in the deal. With the current structure of the deal, every body gets a little something, and NWA buys time to work out their future fleet plans. This is just the casual observation of a lowly A320 line pilot and may not have anything at all to do with reality... The big boys don't confide in me for some strange reason... -- Curved Air Technologies GSJames@ix.netcom.com Gary S. James 70264.2530@CompuServe.com PO Box 1474 Weatherford, TX. 76086-1474 tel: (817) 596-3278 (800) 377-3618 Aircraft Design, Analysis and Consulting From kls Thu Mar 7 02:04:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:04:43 Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU) wrote: > > News item in the newspaper today (Feb 16) said that the flight > > recorder from the Alas/Birgenair 757 had been located on the seabed... John Bay (bay@daacdev1.stx.com) writes: > Would it be possible to make a flight recorder that would transmit all > its stored data upon request, thereby eliminating the necessity to > physically recover the box? This is unlikely to be an issue for a crash on land, so I assume we're talking about the ocean (or a big lake), as with this particular crash. In that case, the same problems would be faced that submarines have in communicating when submerged. Water is practically opaque to radio waves, and while it will transmit sound waves, they get distorted over long distances. I wonder if it might be feasible, though, to attach something to the recorders to make them easier to recover in case of a crash into water. I'm thinking of two possibilities. One is a sonic beacon, to be audible from a passing submarine, or a hydrophone on a surface ship; that ought to cut the search time quite a bit. To activate it in the case of a crash into water, a pressure-sensitive switch could be used -- to trip when the ambient pressure reaches, say, 3 atmospheres, indicating that the device is about 65 feet (20 m) underwater. But the beacon would need battery power, and to be heard at a sufficient distance, maybe more power than it's feasible to provide. The second idea is a float. Attach to the recorder a sturdy, brightly colored balloon and a bottle of a suitable compressed gas. Again trip on a high ambient pressure, being sure to provide enough gas to inflate the balloon against that presssure. This apparatus could be entirely mechanical, so power is not an issue. A drawback is that it might not work -- the crash must destroy the plane sufficiently that the recorder and balloon can float free. (I have no idea how firmly the recorders are fastened down in normal operation, I must admit.) But if they don't, well, we're no worse off than we would be today. -- Mark Brader \ "The occasional accidents had been much overemphasized, msb@sq.com \ and later investigations ... revealed that nearly 90% SoftQuad Inc., Toronto \ ... could have been prevented." --Wiley Post, 1931 My text in this article is in the public domain. From kls Thu Mar 7 02:06:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:06:21 >I wonder if it might be feasible, though, to attach something to the >recorders to make them easier to recover in case of a crash into water. >I'm thinking of two possibilities. One is a sonic beacon, to be audible >from a passing submarine, or a hydrophone on a surface ship; that ought >to cut the search time quite a bit. To activate it in the case of a >crash into water, a pressure-sensitive switch could be used ... >From the reports of how the U.S. Navy located the recorders from the Dominican crash, this is pretty much how they were set up. The only difference from your suggestion is that I think they were activated by water, not pressure. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Mar 7 02:06:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell, Inc. - DAS Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:06:22 bay@daacdev1.stx.com (John Bay) wrote: >To carry the thought a step further (and perhaps to extremes), does current >technology make it feasible for airliners to transmit their operating >parameters to the ground in real time? Not to the bandwidth used for flight testing, but the AIMS (integrated avionics) system on the 777 has the capability to transmit many flight parameters to the airline in near real time using VHF or Satcom datalink. In fact, the airline can program the system to trigger recording actions on virtually an unlimited number of events. Ken Ken Jongsma kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com Honeywell Defense Avionics Systems, Albuquerque, NM "...but I'll be alright as long as there's light from a neon moon." From kls Thu Mar 7 02:06:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu (Peter Hollingsworth) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Grandscale Earthly Destructor Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:06:22 In article , wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) wrote: > Jets can run on avgas, but piston engines will suffer from detonation > and severe loss of power if run on kerosene (jet fuels). For example, > the Garret engines in the Swearingen metroliner are allowed a certain > amount of avgas per overhaul cycle (I don't remember the number > but it is something on the order of a few hundred gallons). On > the other hand, most any piston engine would be destroyed quickly > by kerosene. Why would it suffer from detonation, Kersosene is closer to desil fuel then ligh petroleum distilates. Using Jet fuel in an gasolene powered pistron engine is akin to using desil fuel in the same engine. In fact the U.S. military is standardizing all of the desil and turbine powred vehicles to run on Kerosene. -- Peter Hollingsworth The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor E-Mail:gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu WWW: http://apts19.residence.gatech.edu From kls Thu Mar 7 02:06:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: mkrotz@enet.net (Mark Krotz) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Evergreen Communications, Phoenix, Arizona Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:06:22 In article , jpstrain@netcom.com (Jim Strain) wrote: > >What sort of mis-fueling did you envision? Are there now different kinds >of jet fuel? I know it's been a lot of years since I was a ramp rat, but >it still *smells* like the same stuff to me. The only fuels I remember >ever seeing (and they powered ALL kinds of aircraft) were JP5 (successor >to the old JP4) which was and is basically kerosene, and 115/145 AV-GAS There is actually an Airworthiness Directive out prohibiting the use of JP4 in a number of turbine powered aircraft (including the Boeing 737). If I remember right, it has to do with the fuel controls not liking the difference in specific gravity of the two different fuels, which has actually resulted in in-flight flameouts. JP4 is still available as far as I know, and JetA is in common use in most civil turbine aircraft. Mark A&P, Comm-Multi-inst. CFII-MEI From kls Thu Mar 7 02:06:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: [Q] Airbus book by Gunston Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Organization: University of Manchester Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 96 02:06:22 Does anyone know the year of publication of Bill Gunston's book "Airbus- The European Triumph"? The ISBN is 0-85045-820-X I have checked the local libraries and they don't have it. Please reply directly to my email account. Thanks, A. -- Alain Deckers Tel: +44 (0)161 275 5943 PREST Fax: +44 (0)161 273 1123 University of Manchester Email: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://www.man.ac.uk/~mbzalgd/ From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: The American University Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:28 Message-ID: In article bay@daacdev1.stx.com (John Bay) writes: [about flight recorders] >To carry the thought a step further (and perhaps to extremes), does current >technology make it feasible for airliners to transmit their operating >parameters to the ground in real time? Sure it would, just as 18 wheel trucks are often equipped with senders that transmit the driver's speed, etc. back to the office via satellite. The only problem would probably be that the pilots' unions would probably howl. Both cockpit voice and data are collected during flights, and I have read that some pilots are so concerned about somebody playing back the last 30 minutes of their otherwise private flightdeck conversations (i.e. when not talking to ATC) that they go to the black (really orange) boxes in the back of the plane (where they're more likely to survive a crach) and press the "purge" button, erasing the tape so nobody can come aboard and listen to it. Don't ask me if it's even possible to get at the audio without removing the box and taking it to a lab... From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@SEI.CMU.EDU (Mark Bell) Subject: Re: 757 Flight Recorder Located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Software Engineering Institute Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:28 Message-ID: 29-Feb-96 01:24 bay@daacdev1.stx.com (John Bay) writes : >To carry the thought a step further (and perhaps to extremes), does current >technology make it feasible for airliners to transmit their operating >parameters to the ground in real time? To borrow a phrase from Willie Nelson : "If you've got the money honey, I've got the time" ! >From a purely technological viewpoint, I believe it is feasable. Doing some coarse back of the envelope engineering, you could have asynchronous downlinks to ground recording stations, or asynchronous uplinks to a satellite transponder for subsequent downlink to a ground recording station (the latter view solves mid-Atlantic type situations). Alternately, you could have a synchronous replay to ATC radar or IFF interrogations (sorry, it's been a while since my EW days, and I can't remember if the U.S. Mode 3/C reply is triggered by radar or a seperate IFF signal). You could also contrive a set of conditions such that when any are exceeded would trigger an asynchronous transmission of aircraft data -- the idea here is to capture the data only if one or more data items were outside of acceptable range, and perhaps be able to capture the disaster as it's happening, thereby decreasing the system data storage requirements. I can think of other ways also, but you get my point... I believe the real issue is economic feasibility. Are the recurring and non-recurring costs of such a system worth the benefits ? We, the taxpayers, would be footing the bill. On the one hand I'd say no, as airliner crashes aren't very common, and the CVR and DFDR are usually recovered. On the other hand, we might know what really happend to US Air Flight 427 that went down here in Pittsburgh about a year ago. This is a subjective decision Now, you could also have technicians monitoring all those downlink signals to monitor the aircraft systems in real-time in the hopes of detecting a failure condition before it happens... etc... Regards. Mark S. Bell 412-268-7925 (Voice) Software Engineering Institute 412-268-5758 (Fax) Carnegie Mellon University ** These are my opinions, 4500 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh PA.,15213 not those of the SEI or CMU ** From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757 Flight Recorder Located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:29 Message-ID: >On the one hand I'd say no, as airliner crashes aren't very >common, and the CVR and DFDR are usually recovered. On the other hand, >we might know what really happend to US Air Flight 427 that went >down here in Pittsburgh about a year ago. There were no significant problems in recovering the CVR and DFDR data from US 427, so a real-time downlink of this information would not have made an iota of difference. The "problem" with the DFDR was that it was an older design which was never intended to store as many types of data as newer models. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ctotman@triton.mayfield.hp.com (Chuck Totman) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Mayfield Site Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:29 Message-ID: Jon Ward (Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk) wrote: : bay@daacdev1.stx.com "John Bay" writes: : > Would it be possible to make a flight recorder that would transmit all its : > stored data upon request, thereby eliminating the necessity to physically : > recover the box? : I may be wrong, it's a while since I did my electromagnetics course... : The problem is sea water. Sea water contains sodium chloride (and various : other things), and this makes it an electrolyte - it can conduct electricty. : Because it conducts, this makes it harder for electromagnetic radiation : such as radar, radio transmissions and gamma rays to penetrate : There is also the question of weight - adding a transmitter to a black box : (and batteries) which can survive a crash or explosion means extra pounds. : Every flight you take when it doesn't crash costs you money. What you are proposing is telemetering the data, either real-time or after a crash. On land, this is probably best done with radio waves. In the water, the best option is probably acoustical. (I used to work with some simple acoustic telemetering in the ocean about 20 years ago. It works great.) Either approach would require that a significant collection of equipment still be functional after impact, explosion, fire, submersion, whatever. And you'd need radio for land crashes and acoustic for water. That would be expensive both in terms of weight and cost. Right now, nothing must operate after a crash. The tape (wire?) is recovered and then taken to a full laboratory for the analysis. The real-time telemetering for any particular aircraft is certainly technologically feasible. But the amount of data from each flight times the number of flights in progress at any one time combined with the distances from land-based receiving equipment could present significant data collection and communications challenges if real-time telemetry were mandated for all (or even all big) commercial flights. I suspect it will come within the next 3 to 5 years. Chuck Totman ******************************************* * Views expressed are mine alone and do * * not represent the views of my employer. * ******************************************* From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: georg@sgl.ists.ca (Georg Feil) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:31 Message-ID: bay@daacdev1.stx.com (John Bay) writes: >Would it be possible to make a flight recorder that would transmit all its >stored data upon request, thereby eliminating the necessity to physically >recover the box? I'd guess it would be nearly impossible to keep the tape transport working well enough to play back the data. Are these things even designed to play back anyway? Of course these days an all-semiconductor flight recorder might make sense. Georg. -- Georg Feil Space Geodynamics Laboratory | Internet: georg@sgl.ists.ca Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science | Phone: (416) 665-5458 4850 Keele St./North York/Ont/Canada/M3J 3K1 | Fax: (416) 665-1815 From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jpstrain@netcom.com (Jim Strain) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:31 Message-ID: In article , bay@daacdev1.stx.com wrote: > Would it be possible to make a flight recorder that would transmit all its > stored data upon request, thereby eliminating the necessity to physically > recover the box? Flight recorders are pretty tough, and it's pretty amazing that the integrity of the data they contain is so frequently maintained after the most horrific crashes, but it's quite a leap from being able to preserve stored data after a crash to being able to transmit it. After a crash, the box is usually salvageable, but that doesn't mean it still *works*. . . . jim strain in san diego. From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:32 Message-ID: In article , bay@daacdev1.stx.com wrote: > To carry the thought a step further (and perhaps to extremes), does current > technology make it feasible for airliners to transmit their operating > parameters to the ground in real time? When we (Boeing) are flight testing a new airplane model, it is fitted with an eleborate arrangement of sensors, on-board manned and un-manned computers, and transmitters. All the critical operating data is transmitted in real time back to the flight test labs during the flight, assuming the plane is still within reach of the fixed and mobile antennas. On the first flight of the 777, Flight Test parked a mobile antenna on a small mound on Paine Field. There were a few times when the plane was beyond the reach of the antenna, but for most of the flight, the people in Flight Test were monitoring all the plane's maneuvers and systems. The technology exists, but the extra sensors, computers, and transmitters needed to make it work would simply be more weight and complexity the airlines would have to cart around. Plus more stuff for the mechanics to fix. I'm sure that some day as electronics continue to shrink in size, real-time data transmission and analysis by the commercial airlines will become practical. But look at all the stuff that's required right now just to generate and transmit satellite-based navigation and communication data (CNS/ATM). C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:32 Message-ID: Ken Jongsma wrote (Mar 7 12:06:52 1996): >> ... does current >> technology make it feasible for airliners to transmit their operating >> parameters to the ground in real time? > > Not to the bandwidth used for flight testing, but the AIMS (integrated > avionics) system on the 777 has the capability to transmit many flight > parameters to the airline in near real time using VHF or Satcom > datalink. ... and the A3XX family (and others?) use ACARS, which *is* a full real-time system for transmitting operating parameters. The implementation depends on the ability of the carrier to receive the data, not on the ability of the aircraft to transmit it. -- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:32 Message-ID: >... and the A3XX family (and others?) use ACARS, which *is* a full >real-time system for transmitting operating parameters. The implementation >depends on the ability of the carrier to receive the data, not on the >ability of the aircraft to transmit it. ACARS is widely available -- United and Delta both use it on their entire fleet, for example. However, my understanding of it is that it does not have the sort of bandwidth required for a DFDR downlink sort of application, and I'm not sure it even qualifies as a real- time system. It might provide some dozens of reports on a typical flight, with some fairly basic data, and not a continuous stream covering hundreds of datapoints. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: mkrotz@qrz.com (Mark Krotz) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Evergreen Communications, Phoenix, Arizona Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:32 Message-ID: In article , >To carry the thought a step further (and perhaps to extremes), does current >technology make it feasible for airliners to transmit their operating >parameters to the ground in real time? > Not only is it feasible, it is actually in use. Its called ACARS (aircraft calling and reporting system). It can provide automatic transmission from air-to-ground of OUT-OFF-ON-IN times, flight number, crew identification, fuel load, passenger count, data such as engine performance, position, maintenance reports. Also, it can include air-to-ground and ground-to-air selective calling. A lot of the information is provided automatically by sensors, and it is sent in digital data clusters over VHF frequencies. Mark From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:32 Message-ID: In article msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > I wonder if it might be feasible, though, to attach something to the > recorders to make them easier to recover in case of a crash into water. > I'm thinking of two possibilities. One is a sonic beacon, to be audible > from a passing submarine, or a hydrophone on a surface ship; that ought > to cut the search time quite a bit. Um, that's essentially how things work now. The FDR and CVR each have an Underwater Locator Beacon. They activate via a switch which water activates due to the mineral (or salt) content. They ping at about 1/sec at an ultrasonic frequency which has good propogation characteristics through water, and recovery ships use pinger locators. Recall that the reason the FDR's and CVR's were located very quickly after the US Navy brought in locating equipment. There were other reasons for delaying the actual recovery of these units (funding, if I recall). > The second idea is a float. Attach to the recorder a sturdy, brightly > colored balloon and a bottle of a suitable compressed gas. Again trip > on a high ambient pressure, being sure to provide enough gas to inflate > the balloon against that presssure. This apparatus could be entirely > mechanical, so power is not an issue. A drawback is that it might not > work -- the crash must destroy the plane sufficiently that the recorder > and balloon can float free. (I have no idea how firmly the recorders > are fastened down in normal operation, I must admit.) But if they don't, > well, we're no worse off than we would be today. Both of these boxes are well-bolted to the structure of the aircraft. The damage necessary to free the CVR would be rather extreme (i.e. explosion between the unit and the tray.) In addition, the presense of a compressed gas unit in an aircraft would probably be a significant safety hazard in itself. (The only compressed gas I'm aware of inside the fuselage on newer model aircraft are the pilot's oxygen bottles, and they are treated with great respect. Passenger emergency oxygen on more recent aircraft are provided by perchlorate candles, similar to emergency oxygen systems on submarines.) Finally, it's probably useful to have the units remain located with the wreckage of an aircraft, in order to allow recovery of other aircraft components. Hope this helps, ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Netcom Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:32 Message-ID: In Andy Zeitlin writes: >..In the near term, the system probably will use the Mode S data link, >which is very limited in its capacity. The messages will carry >aircraft position, velocity, direction, identity, but little else. >Contrast this to a flight data recorder which tells about engine >speeds, flaps, vertical rates, bank, pitch, etc etc. However, it doesn't make sense to continuously broadcast>info. that rarely will be needed if bandwidth is at all scarce. One more thing: the cockpit voice recorder is usually far more valuable than the FDR in crash investigations. Should all cockpit audio be transmitted to the ground? Ricky From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: erfunc@aol.com (Erfunc) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: erfunc@aol.com (Erfunc) Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:33 Message-ID: Dear Ken, I download ACARS transmissions here in the SFO area in California and I have seen "Aims" used in what I think are maintenance messages. What does "AIMS' litterally stand for? Thanks, Ed Flynn erfunc@aol.com From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:33 Message-ID: I rarely find myself in disagreement with Robert, but in this case I wonder -- he says that "for anyone to attempt a *new* design is madness" ... but Boeing just did exactly that with the 777. Why is attempting a new design in any large, expensive, relatively limited market area by its very nature a recipe for madness/disaster? Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: : In article carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) writes: : >That only happens because the 747 has been around for a long time. : >The A3XX is Airbus' self destruction button. : >Boeing's own production estimates for the 747 derivatives : >look pretty conservative (~25/year). : : The May 27, 1978 issue of FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL (back when the magazine was : actually pretty cool) had a story in which they discussed Boeing's finally : having recovered its development and production costs on the 747--at the : 400-airplane mark. : : Even adjusted for inflation, development costs for a new airplane are going : to be astronomical, and for anyone to attempt a *new* design is madness, : assuming that the development and production costs are to be provided by : actual sales of the product. -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 770 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A. From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:33 Message-ID: On 7 Mar 1996, Robert Dorsett wrote: > > Everyone will lose. And after a bad safety year, I would wonder about > the acceptance of the public to a design in which the human loss following > a crash would be incomprehensible. Is it still 1965? Jennings Heilig From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: michel gammon Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Logiscom Internet Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:33 Message-ID: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > >Everyone will lose. And after a bad safety year, I would wonder about >the acceptance of the public to a design in which the human loss following >a crash would be incomprehensible. Would it be any worse than the losses when the Titanic (1500+ lost), or Lusitania (1195 lost), or the Empress of Ireland in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (1014 lost) went down? I've heard this argument many times before. Yes, it is terrible when even one life is lost, but I believe that per passenger mile, the losses on the ocean liners weren't much better, although that's a guess on my part. Flying remains one of the safest means of transport. Mike Gammon From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bdo@artos.fb12.tu-berlin.de (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Technische Universität Berlin Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:33 Message-ID: You should drop the short-term SUD for Stretched Upper Deck like Boeing did when someone told them that SUD in medical terms stands for Sudden Unexplained Death. The designation then was changed to EUD for Extended Upper Deck Burkhard Domke From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:33 Message-ID: >You should drop the short-term SUD for Stretched Upper Deck like >Boeing did when someone told them that SUD in medical terms stands for >Sudden Unexplained Death. The designation then was changed to EUD for >Extended Upper Deck The recent references that I've seen still list the modified -200s as -200(SUD) models. As far as I know, the -200(EUD) designation applied originally to aircraft which were built with the extended upper deck. These aircraft were subsequently redesignated 747-300. None of this is official, but I find it hard to believe that Boeing would change designations because of the medical terminology as you suggest. It would probably be impossible to come up with a TLA that does NOT have some unpleasant meaning in *some* context. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Mar 14 17:49:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Imran Haq Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Reply-To: ihaq@mit.edu Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:34 Message-ID: >I've seen a number of these >as well, and I'm puzzled about Boeing's decision to use the standard >-100 and -200 upper deck instead of the stretched upper deck used in the >passenger variant. Although weight is a concern, I would have thought that the SUD adds a aerodynamic benefit that would counter some of this weight penalty. One the passenger side, the SUD aircrafts are somewhat more efficient than the -100 and -200 versions (though the exact % benefit excapes me right now). The SUD's benefit can probably (if crudely) explained using the transonic area rule. Imran Haq ihaq@mit.edu From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:22 Message-ID: In article , gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu says... > >In article , wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu >(Jim Wolper) wrote: > >> Jets can run on avgas, but piston engines will suffer from detonation >> and severe loss of power if run on kerosene (jet fuels). For example, >> the Garret engines in the Swear -------------- snipped -------------------------------------- I have first hand knowledge of a "kerosene" destroyed piston engine. One of our customers (when I worked for a small flying school) rented our one and only float plane (R-172K [Cessna Hawk XP], 195 HP injected, AVGAS 100) and went off to the great north for some fishing. He dropped in at a helicopter base that had a nice long lake and pulled up to the dock. We later found out that the attendant did not want to fill the XP with the only fuel avaialble (JET A or JP-4, I can't remember), but the pilot INSISTED. Well he managed to get home (two hours or so), but the engine was running poorly and not developing full power. When the mechanic was pulled in to take a look, the smell of kerosene told him what happened long before the cowling was pulled... After the teardown of the engine, we saved the pistons as ashtrays (the good-ole flying club days). The face of the piston (cumbustion side) had a crust of about 1 mm thick that could not be removed. (I seem to remeber that it was a sand color...not black). Anyway, the school learned to be more selective of its float plane renters... There are some piston engines which accept a broader range of fuels, but the Lycomings and Continentals of the world definitely want 80/87 or these days 100 or 100LL. I remember that John Deere were trying to build a ceramic turbine for automobiles and tractors. It would spin in the 80,000 - 110,000 RPM range (actually tested to over 130,000 RPM) and develop about 100 HP. It was designed to use just about anything that would burn from propane, LPG, LNG, NG, ... Car gas, AVGAS, .... diesel .... Kerosene...without any "life effects on the engine). The advantage of Ceramic was that the "burn" temperature could be optimized as high as possible resulting in greatest efficiency. This was of interest to my dad and I at a time when we partipated in the "Flying Engineers" and were given a briefing at a meet in Ohio. Alan Browne From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:22 Message-ID: On 07 Mar 96 02:06:22 , mkrotz@enet.net (Mark Krotz) said: M> There is actually an Airworthiness Directive out prohibiting the M> use of JP4 in a number of turbine powered aircraft (including the M> Boeing 737). If I remember right, it has to do with the fuel M> controls not liking the difference in specific gravity of the two M> different fuels, which has actually resulted in in-flight M> flameouts. JP4 is still available as far as I know, and JetA is in M> common use in most civil turbine aircraft. JP-4 is no longer available, having been replaced with JP-8. The only way to get JP-4 is to have a special run done at the refinery. A previous poster suggested that JP-5 was the successor to JP-4. This is incorrect. JP-4 was used by the Air Force and was based on avgas. This is quite volatile, with a fairly low flash point, and the Navy did not consider it to be sufficiently safe for use on carriers. The Navy specified JP-5, based on kerosene, for its airplanes. JP-5 is much less volatile than JP-4 and has a much higher flash point. Jet engines are not actually too terrible fussy about what they burn (the seals, etc, may be, but the combustion process isn't) and Navy aircraft could use JP-4 if JP-5 wasn't available, for instance at an Air Force base. However, the Navy required that the JP-4-fueled airplane be refueled with JP-5 a number of times (4 or 5, as I recall) before the airplane could be struck below to the hangar deck, which is a confined space filled with fueled aircraft. JP-8, the replacement for JP-4, is also a kerosene-based fuel, but slightly more volatile than JP-5 and having a slightly lower flash point. However, it's much better than JP-4. It has the added advantage of being used by tanks, trucks, and other ground vehicles, as well as helicopters. Switching to it improved fuel safety and reduced the number of fuels required from the military from three to two. There are still a few aircraft in use that won't run on JP-8 instead of JP-4. The one I have first-hand knowledge of is the variable-stability NT-33A. This plane will run, however, on a mixture of avgas and oil, although this does coke the engine up a little faster than JP-4 did. Dryden discovered the difficulties with introducing JP-8 to a JP-4 airplane when we were flying the last few flights with our F-104Gs. While the engines ran well, the seals on the nozzle actuators were damaged by the JP-8 and had to be replaced with new ones. -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: speedbird4@aol.com Subject: Re: L1011 Headroom Reasoning... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:23 Message-ID: In Article, > > My question is: how was extra headroom justified? > Would it reduce the L1011's cargo capability? > Or -- possibly -- improve it? > My guess is that the greater headroom was made possible by the lack of center overhead bins and comparatively small (against the 747/DC10) window overhead bins. Craig From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rboggs@pacifier.com (Richard Boggs) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Pacifier, public access Internet site. 360-693-0325 Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:23 Message-ID: In article , Peter Hollingsworth wrote: >Why would it suffer from detonation, Kersosene is closer to desil fuel >then ligh petroleum distilates. Using Jet fuel in an gasolene powered >pistron engine is akin to using desil fuel in the same engine. In fact the >U.S. military is standardizing all of the desil and turbine powred >vehicles to run on Kerosene. Jet fuels, stove-oil, and kerosene cause detonation in recips (except diesels) because the burning characteristics (in a reciprocating engine) are nearly opposite that of gasoline fuels. They work well in diesel engines while gasoline does not. Aside from detonation damage in a gasoline fueled recip, a "thin" mixture of jet fuel and gasoline causes high exhaust temps which lead to stretched valves and loss of power. There have been many cases of aircraft flying for extended periods before engine failure. At least one well documented accident caused by mis-fueling occurred when the crew of a freight hauling DC-3 attempted several times to take off. Each attempt was aborted due to power loss. The final attempt ended in flames at the end of the runway. Examination of the engines showed valve stretching due to overheating, and detonation damage. Rick Rick Boggs : When men come to like a sea-life, rboggs@pacifier.com : They are not fit to live on land. Merchant Marine and Maritime Pages : http://www.pacifier.com/~rboggs : Samuel Johnson From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: FMS capability (and Enhanced GPWS) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Netcom Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:25 Message-ID: In ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: >In any case, the FMS does not have terrain data available to it, and >the current avionics industry development is leaning more toward >giving the GPWS a terrain data base, and to leave the FMS alone... Won't the Enhanced GPWS have the same constraints of proving the integrity of the database that the FMS would have? What about the integrity of the GPS sensor, or whatever is used to determine the plane's location within the database? GPWS has saved countless lives, but it has repeatedly proven itself as incapable of providing sufficient warning in many CFIT accidents. Therefore it is inadequate as a fallback system if the database based system should fail to warn. You can't just say, "If one system doesn't work, then MAYBE the other will." Ralph From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gorca!jnhall@uunet.uu.net (Joseph N. Hall) Subject: Re: FMS capability (was: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: GORCA Systems Inc. Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:25 Message-ID: In article Tom Speer writes: >However, if you talk to the >Defense Mapping Agency folks that put together the data, they will tell you >that the data are NOT, repeat NOT, reliable enough to serve as the sole >means of terrain avoidance. My fiancee is a PhD candidate digital cartographer, and she can talk to you at length about the obvious discrepancies found in the publicly available elevation datasets. Really, really blatant stuff, like missing or gratuitous peaks. My assumption is that if extremely accurate datasets exist they are classified or in production. Also, there are the storage requirements ... let's say CONUS is roughly 1500 x 3000 mi, sampled at 100ft intervals to a 16-bit accuracy ... this means we need 4.5M x 52^2 x 16 bits = 22GB ... and how will all that data be collected with verifiable accuracy? Why not just turn on the radar altimeter and watch out for blinking red lights. From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mjtp Subject: Re: Subsidies now 727/Trident Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Montana Internet Cooperative Association Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:25 Message-ID: Ian Judge wrote: >Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: > > >: One thing the Europeans never were very good at, though, was selling >: airliners. The Comet flopped. The Trident was sunk by the 727 (on the >instead of the total oil loss system booster engine the competition may >have been a little more interesting. Also another problem was the weight of the Trident, that is another reason why the 4th engine was there. Also later on the wings (that were already heavy) later on had corrosion problems, had metal plates but on the wings which resulted in even more weight increases. Jeff From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tmackay@uoguelph.ca (Anthony Mackay) Subject: Re: Subsidies now 727/Trident Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Guelph Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:25 Message-ID: Ian Judge (ian@judgei.demon.co.uk) wrote: : Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: : : One thing the Europeans never were very good at, though, was selling : : airliners. I may have missed it in the dozen or so follow-ups but surely the Vickers Viscount would count as an unqualified success. I seem to remember that 460 something of them were sold. From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Re: Subsidies now 727/Trident Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Manchester Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:26 Message-ID: Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: >: One thing the Europeans never were very good at, though, was selling >: airliners. [...] No serious point intended with the following, just light relief. ;-) Ian McIntyre's book "Dogfight - The Transatlantic Battle over Airbus", which is rather entertaining in addition to informative, contains a number of anecdotes describing the tricks used by Airbus folks to sell aircraft. Here's one of them: [See pp. 39-40 of McIntyre's book]: In the mid-70s, Airbus & Boeing were trying to sell to Air India. It was apparently a tough competition (aren't they all?) and Bernard Lathiere, Airbus's MD at the time, flew to India "and pulled out all the stops", in McIntyre's words. Lathiere was born in Calcutta, his father having worked there for Michelin, and had once travelled on the same ship as Mahatma Ghandi. On arriving in India, he informed Air India's MD that it was his birthday. "Then, with a nicely judged sense of theatre, Lathiere took out his wallet and produced his trump card. It was a faded snapshot of Mahatma Ghandi ... The photo showed the Mahatma at his spinning wheel. The small fingure standing beside him was the future boss of Airbus, aged three and a half. That evening, in a Dehli Restaurant, [Air India's MD] joined in the celebrations-Happy Birthday, dear Bernard ... There are many ways of selling aircraft." How about that! Not very good at selling aircraft? ;-) Cheers, A. -- Alain Deckers http://www.man.ac.uk/~mbzalgd/ From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: Boeing 767 incident Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet Direct Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:26 Message-ID: > Curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to telephone Canadian > Airlines (1-800-661-4716) and their public relations officer confirmed > that indeed there was ice on the ramp, and this ice did play a significant > role. Vindicated again by skill and local training! BTW before T3 opened I spent a whole night taxiing around out there to determine the wind and thrust dynamics of the building shape with all sorts of aircraft engines running. Common sense eventually got the better of me and I moved to YVR. Cheers, Peter From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes Subject: Re: Airbus threatens to sue Boeing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:26 Message-ID: Brad Gillies wrote: > What about the lack of climb and time to cruise performance? I know The A340 > in particular has a power problem that limits the aircraft to a step climb > which is more pronounced than it's competitors. > Any comments on this? We don't experience a lack of climb performance that we find limiting in our A340-200 aircraft, although I suspect your comments may stem from some early A340-300 aircraft, being heavier with lower thrust C2 engines. I know of one airline operating this type out of HKG which in summer seems to take a considerable distance to get to height (in ISA+15 to 20 conditions) and commences cruise a step lower than we do. The -200s we operate don't exhibit this problem. We use a normal step climb procedure, which usually has us commencing cruise a step above our company 747-400s heading to Europe with us. We tend to remain a step above the -400 until they can reach our final FL390/410 cruise level. Yes, the A340 does take longer to get to its initial cruise level and a -400 or similar will outclimb the A340 in pure time to height terms. It gets back to matching thrust on the wing to required cruise thrust. The A340 is well matched in the cruise, the competition could be considered to be overpowered in the cruise. We certainly haven't found this to be limiting around Asia, and it hasn't been limiting on the ULH sectors out of Europe/North America either. The aircraft makes it to height within the limits prescribed at most places we operate. We don't anticipate that our A340-300s (commence delivery in June) will exhibit these problems either, as they will be fitted with higher thrust derivatives of the CFM56-5C family. The "power problem" (as you call it) was in fact a design feature of the aircraft, which allows it to achieve its excellent ULH specific fuel consumption figures. You can't have your cake and eat it too ;-) Yes, the aircraft uses most of the available runway, takes time to get to height, but normally commences cruise (ATC permitting) at the same level/generally higher than the competition, and benefits from this for the next 14 or so hours as its SFC is so much lower. Apologies for the delayed reply ... have just returned from a trip to Toronto/Anchorage with no access to the News Group. Regards, Rick Hughes From kls Fri Mar 15 01:05:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francisco Marreiros Subject: Re: DC-10-30 (and -10's ??) #2 Thrust rever Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. Date: 15 Mar 96 01:05:27 Message-ID: >>lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) >>A related question: Is it true that Mexicana has disconnected their squat >>switches, in order to be able to come down fast? >bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) wrote: >This seems a bit strange. If the squat switch is activated you're already >down! > >Note that DC-10's/MD-11/DC-9 family do not have main gear switches. >Functions related to main gear on ground (such as autobrakes and spoilers) >use a signal telling them that the wheels have spun up. > I also find it difficult to believe that Mexicana has disconnected the squat switches on the DC-10s. If i understand the question correctly the concept of disconnecting the squat switches would be to fool the aircraft into thinking it is in ground mode therefore allowing systems such as ground spoilers,which deploy to a greater angle than speedbrakes destroy lift further and allow the aircraft to descend quicker. I have said concept because it is probably not impossible but very difficult to accomplish, not to say illegal but thats another issue. My statements are in referance to the DC10 as i am more familiar with this type. As Brian has stated this aircraft does not have main gear ground sensing switches but uses wheel spinup. The four aft main wheel speed transducers provide input for the auto ground spoiler system. These transducers would have to be sensing spinup for the spiolers to deploy, modifiying them in any way would invariably affect the antiskid and autobrake systems. The DC-10 does have a ground sensing control mechanism located on the nose gear that provides a means of establishing a ground/flight mode of operation for certain systems.In this system there are two ground sensing switches. These switches also provide imputs for number of other systems ie: pitot heat, aoa probes heat, ground idle control, auto pitch trim any many more that i cant recall at this moment. I therfore find it difficult to believe that either system would be tampered with as these systems affect many other systems directly and indirectly. The speedbrakes are a proven system of destroying lift, extending these panels past their designed angle ! who knows?? I hope this is of any help to your question. Francisco From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:04 Message-ID: In article libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: >I rarely find myself in disagreement with Robert, but in this >case I wonder -- he says that "for anyone to attempt a *new* design >is madness" ... but Boeing just did exactly that with the 777. I should have been clearer. Two Big Airplane designs at the same time would be madness. Obviously, there are market opportunities in the 150- seat market, etc. And, unfortunately, opportunities to replace three- and four-engine long-range transports with two-engined transports. -- 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 Mar 19 00:44:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:04 Message-ID: In article michel gammon writes: >Would it be any worse than the losses when the Titanic (1500+ lost), or >Lusitania (1195 lost), or the Empress of Ireland in the Gulf of St. >Lawrence (1014 lost) went down? Airline crashes have long attracted far more press attention than other types of crashes. People are fundamentally nervous about flying. When a train crashes, or a boat sinks, the stories are covered as curiosities because they are considered completely reliable forms of transportation (erroneously!) by the public: what, for example, is so difficult about maneu- vering down a railroad track? :-) When accidents like those happen, it is usually perceived as obviously a case of human error or stupidity. For a quick check of the impact of crashes on the public's perception of air safety, take a look at rec.travel. A larger crowd of hand-wringers you will never see. :-) And, yes, if the Titanic and Lusitania went down in the information age, I suspect that their impact would have been pretty significant. They were pretty damned significant as it is, as evidenced by your citation of the incidents. -- 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 Mar 19 00:44:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:05 Message-ID: On 29 Feb 96 01:24:25 , carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) wrote: >>It's also hard to justify even from a industrial policy viewpoint. >>Even if you accept that Europe "must" have the capability to build >>transport aircraft, that's been achieved with the A330/340 program. >There is also the A300 ST, which has a huge fuselage but very >likely limited range and is being pushed as a military transport. This thread has been dead for some time, but just as a matter of record, I understand that the A300 ST is only being produced in limited numbers (at least initially) for internal Airbus use. It is also called the "Super Flipper" and will replace the "Super Guppy" that are currently (or have until recently? I'm not sure when the ST has gone/is supposed to go into service) used to ferry outsize structural components between Airbus locations. I would imagine that the economics of the A300 ST wouldn't be particularly good. As for Airbus's ambitions in the military field, they certainly seem to have taken a hit with the cancellation of the Future Large Aircraft (FLA). I read in a recent issue of AW&ST that the French have dropped the FLA for budgetary reasons, though its prospects never seemed particularly brilliant after the Royal Air Force decided to purchase the C-130J. The plan had at one point been to bring the FLA under the Airbus umbrella, though in a newly created military aircraft division that would have included the Italian firm Alenia, which participated in the preliminary phases of the FLA programme. British Aerospace (BAe) has in the past been rather worried about the British government's lack commitment to the FLA, arguing that if they didn't get in on the act, the Germans would get to make the wing for the FLA and that this would threaten BAe's position in future Airbus programmes (if I remember correctly, BAe actually had to compete with DASA to get the wing contract for the A330/340; the Germans have always been unhappy with their share of the Airbus work, rightly so to a large extent. Hence the A321 final assembly line in Hamburg). I remember talking to a guy in BAe's FLA office about this at the time. I swallowed their story and wrote a letter to the Financial Times saying that the UK govt. should stop messing around and commit to the FLA (bit of self-promotion: they published it). Clearly I hadn't considered the wider picture of the FLA's place in everyone else's list of priorities. Anyway, BAe did give me the other info I needed. ;-) Cheers, A. -- Alain Deckers Tel: +44 (0)161 275 5943 PREST, The Universiy of Manchester Fax: +44 (0)161 273 1123 Manchester M13 9PL Email: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk United Kingdom From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: 757 Crash / Airspeed Indicator Question Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The American University Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:05 Message-ID: I don't understand why a malfunctioning airspeed indicator would cause a 757 to crash. At the point in the flight when the pilots discovered that there was a discrepancy, weren't they at full-throttle anyway? If they weren't at maximum power, why didn't they go to it immediately and put the nose down some when the stick started shaking (didn't it shake for over a minute?)? Can anybody help clue-in a non-pilot? From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@Eisner.DECUS.ORG (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Weight of cabin air at altitude Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:05 Message-ID: On a popular airline web site, there is a mention that on its 747-400s, when at altitude, the amount of air compressed into the plane weights one ton. I can understand that this would have an impact since it does make the plane heavier compared to the adjacent environment (thin air at 10km altitude) and hence does require more lift than would be needed if the cabin were not pressurized. When a plane is designed, is this a major factor taken into consideration or is that added relative weight when at altitude more than compensated by the loss of fuel to get up there ? From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Moss <75500.2007@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Add MD-90 to thrust/weight ratio table? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4fbfiv$qn3@tofu.alt.net> Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:05 Message-ID: For a rough approximation, use 28,000 lb (X2) for thrust and 159,000 lb for max certified takeoff weight, and you get: 352 for thrust to weight. On a low-weight takeoff, around 110,000 lbs, T/W is .509. Normally, MD-90 takeoffs use a 20 deg nose-up pitch attitude (limited by software in the flight guidance computer) and accelerate above the normal climb-out speed because of the excess thrust. On the baseline 25,000 lb thrust engines, the difference in thrust isn't noticeable. One other added feature of the MD-90 is the overrated thrust potential of the engines, available in conditions such as windshear, where the thrust can go up to over 30,000 lbs. A wonderful jet to fly and ride in. Doug Moss -- Doug Moss 75500.2007@compuserve.com From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: Protruding "Fin" Marked HOT on A300 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:06 Message-ID: In article , pdaniel@ice.net.au (Paul Daniel) writes: > Can anyone satisfy my curiosity please. > > I was looking at a QANTAS A300 the other day and notice what I'd > describe as a type of fin protruding from the fuselage behind the > forward cargo door. Can someone tell me what this is please and why it > was coloured with orange stripes and marked HOT. What makes it hot? > > Paul Daniel (pdaniel@ice.net.au) > New Norfolk > Tasmania Australia What you saw was most likely one of the AOA (Angle of Attack) sensors, which is used by the aircraft's air data system to compute many things including available lift and stall points. The sensor moves in the relative wind, giving an indication of the wing's angle of attack. It is usually kept heated to prevent expected or unexpected icing. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Protruding "Fin" Marked HOT on A300 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:06 Message-ID: In article , pdaniel@ice.net.au (Paul Daniel) wrote: > Can anyone satisfy my curiosity please. > > I was looking at a QANTAS A300 the other day and notice what I'd > describe as a type of fin protruding from the fuselage behind the > forward cargo door. Can someone tell me what this is please and why it > was coloured with orange stripes and marked HOT. What makes it hot? This is not exclusive to Airbus. What you saw may have been an antenna or a pitot tube or an angle of attack indicator, although the last two are usually mounted forward on the body below the cockpit. The "hot" means that it is heated to prevent the formation of ice, either electrically or by hot bleed air. In the case of an antenna, it is probably heated by electricity. While the anti-ice is not usually switched on on the ground, it may be, or outside condtions may require it to be, in which case someone grabbing it by mistake could be burned. Heating the fin is necessary because an ice buildup could tear it off the plane during flight. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: skrautdog@aol.com (SKRAUTDOG) Subject: Re: Protruding "Fin" Marked HOT on A300 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: skrautdog@aol.com (SKRAUTDOG) Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:06 Message-ID: I'm an aircraft tech. This is a overboard water drain for the lav sink and galley drain. The purpose of heating this drain is to prevent ice from forming. It is heated electrically. Most of these types of drains are turned on and off via a switch that sences when the aircraft is on the ground or in the air. From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jpstrain@netcom.com (Jim Strain) Subject: Re: Protruding "Fin" Marked HOT on A300 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:06 Message-ID: In article , pdaniel@ice.net.au (Paul Daniel) wrote: > Can anyone satisfy my curiosity please. > > I was looking at a QANTAS A300 the other day and notice what I'd > describe as a type of fin protruding from the fuselage behind the > forward cargo door. Can someone tell me what this is please and why it > was coloured with orange stripes and marked HOT. What makes it hot? > Whetever it is (some sort of antenna?), it's probably equipped with an anti-icing heater. When I first started working on military jets (many years ago), I remember badly burning the palm of my hand when, in order to steady myself on a ladder, I grabbed the vane of the aircraft's angle-of-attack transmitter. Wish it would've had a "hot" mark on it. Shortened my lifeline. . . . jim strain in san diego. From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Northwest and Airbus: good news for A320, more bad news for A330 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:06 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > On Monday, Northwest announced an order for 20 Airbus A320 aircraft, > with ten to be delivered in 1998 and 1999. Northwest's fleet already > includes 50 A320s with CFM56-5A1 engines. (The announcement did not > specify Northwest's engine choice but it's unlikely that they would > switch to the IAE V2500.) I seem to have read it some where that they have specified the CFM56 engines for the new order, but I don't remember where I read it. BTW, I thought the reported value of the order was quite interesting. The order was said to be worth US$500 million, which translates into an extremely low US$25 million per aircraft. A year ago, the listed price for the A320 was close to US$40 million, now it is reported to be US$35 million. Aircraft manufacturers usually announce the face value of an order; they seldom give the actual value. Hence, I was really surprised by the US$500 million number. Just to give everyone a reference point, ValuJet's order of 50 MD95s was valued at US$1 billion and so was SAS's order of 36 B737-600s (both the MD95 and the B737-600 are significant smaller aircraft than the A320). > The agreement also included a five-year deferral of deliveries of 16 > A330 aircraft, which had been scheduled for eight each in 1999 and > 2000. The new delivery dates are in 2004 and 2005. More significant > was that the agreement, with Airbus and engine supplier Pratt and > Whitney, allows Northwest to substitute other products from the two > manufacturers. Northwest apparently pressed hard for this option as > they are not happy with what they've seen of the A330. IMHO, this is another setback for the A330. I think you can pencil it in that NW is not going to fly the A330 (or at least not the A330-300 that it has originally ordered). Recently, TWA has openly hinted that it will drop the A330 from its future plan. The A330 seems to have a hard time setting a foot in the North American market. Even the A340, which is selling quite well in other parts of the world, has Air Canada as its only North American operator (or two if you include BWIA). Nevertheless, I think the new A330-200 should have a better luck in the US if Airbus can get AA interested in buying the aircraft. NW's fleet has a big hole between the B757 and DC-10. The A330-200 may fill the hole for NW. During the past two years, Airbus has only gained two new A330 customers, namely Gulf Air (6 aircraft) and Philippines (8). Also, during the same period, it has received only three add-on orders from Aer Lingus (1 aircraft), Cathay Pacific (2), and yet-to-be-finalized order from Thai (4). With the danger of losing two A330 customers (NW and TW), the A330 definitely needs a revival. Hopefully for Airbus, the A330-200 will be it. > Presumably the Pratt engines don't have to be on Airbus aircraft -- > the A300-600 and A310 are the only other Airbus offerings which can > use Pratt engines, unless you count the A320 with V2500s from IAE, of > which Pratt is a partner. It seems more likely that, if Northwest > were to convert the A330 order, they'd either opt for the A340 or more > A320s, while putting the Pratt engines on Boeing products such as the > 747 or 757, which Northwest already has, or a 777 order should they > choose the 777 to take the place of their A330 order. Remember the "rumor" that NW was going to launch the PW6000-powered MD95 (along with ValuJet which chose the BR715 for the new aircraft)? However, it's clear now that the MD95 will not be offered with the PW6000 engine. Another distant possibility is NW may convert the A330 to the proposed PW2000-powered A340-400X. NW can use the A340-400X to replace its aging B747-100/200 fleet. Nevertheless, the A340-400X market is probably not big enough to have two powerplant offerings, and I can't see CFMI (especially SNECMA) withdraws its CFM-XX from the contention. (Just a side note, GE may finally find its way to get on the B757 with the CFM-XX which should be a candidate for the B757-200X and B757-300X.) Actually, in the unlikely event that there is a significant change in the US-Japan bilateral (i.e., NW and UA have to drastically reduce their Japanese beyond rights), the smaller A340 will be an ideal plane for NW's trans-Pacific operation (but so will the B777). -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) Subject: Those backward-pointing rods on A320 wing things... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Reply-To: al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:07 Message-ID: I'm not sure if I've seen this one answered before here, but it's vitally important for a friend of mine to know: Extending behind the trailing edge of an A320's main wing, there are two fair-sized "bulk-heads" (probably not what they're called). I believe they contain some linkages, fastenings or actuators for the flaps, and or ailerons. Extending out of the point of each one is a thin rod or tube. Are they: a) static diffusers b) some kind of sensors c) fuel dumping nozzles (I doubt it, they're pretty thin) d) hooks for ground crew to hang their headphones on e) none of the above ? Any reasonable answer will be considered. Thanks, Scott -- _____________________________________________________________________________ Scott Wright Ottawa, Canada "You can't have everything... Where would you put it?" - Stephen Wright (no relation) From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: Airbus A320 flight controls Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:07 Message-ID: >I ran through the logic test from the Maintenance manual for the sidestick >logic last night and this is what I found... >Aircraft is on short term lease from an Company in Britain so the logic could >be different. > >1) Pushing either sidestick button will transfer priority to the associated >side. Aural warning "Priority Left (right)". >2) Holding the side stick for 40 seconds deactivates opposite stick >3) Pushing button on deactivated stick, reactivates stick. >4) holding button on deactivated stick switches priority to that stick. >5) Moving one stick right and one stick left results in no flight control >deflections. >6) same as above for all flight control surfaces. except rudder. > >This was done according to the MM and passed the test. >Any questions? I'm sorry but this stuff scares me silly. This all seem so convoluted and unlikely to be correctly remembered by a flight crew in an emergency. Compared to a simple mechanical linkage between the two devices which incorporates feed back of what each pilot is doing and with what force and with no need for silly averaging algorithms etc. All for what ... to save a few pounds of cabling or whatever to link the controls. Digital is not always better. -- Cheers, ------------------------------------------------- Peter Ashwood-Smith | email: petera@bnr.ca Bell Northern Research | work : (613)763-4534 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | home : (819)595-9032 From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: Vickers Viscounts in the US? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:07 Message-ID: In article astracon@aol.com (Astracon) writes: > >Can anyone help me compile a list of Vickers Viscounts still in existence >in the US? I recently observed 5 of them in storage at Tucson >International Airport, and there is a sixth on display at the nearby Pima >Air Museum. From what I understand the Mid Atlantic Air Museum also keeps >one on the east coast in flying condition. > >Any others lingering anywhere else in the US? >From fairly recent personal observations- N7471 at Reading Pa (Mid-Atlantic Museum) N7411 derelict at Salt Lake City N1899K stored(abandoned?) at Milwaukee N555SL at Chino Ca (still there ?) and if you include Canada, there is one in the National Museum in Ottawa and one here in Vancouver used as a Tech School instructional airframe. Supplementary question - any still airworthy ? Brian Maddison From kls Tue Mar 19 00:44:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gdmckinn@ccnet.com (Gary McKinnis) Subject: Re: Vickers Viscounts in the US? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest) Date: 19 Mar 96 00:44:07 Message-ID: "Marcelo F. Cosi" writes: >Rock&Roll group called Boston had one in mint condition. I recall reading that singer Ray Charles has/had one, too. From kls Thu Mar 21 02:37:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu (Peter Hollingsworth) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: The Grandscale Earthly Destructor Date: 21 Mar 96 02:37:55 Message-ID: In article , ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) wrote: > > The second idea is a float. Attach to the recorder a sturdy, brightly > > colored balloon and a bottle of a suitable compressed gas. Again trip > > on a high ambient pressure, being sure to provide enough gas to inflate > >.... > > Both of these boxes are well-bolted to the structure of the aircraft. > The damage necessary to free the CVR would be rather extreme (i.e. > explosion between the unit and the tray.) In addition, the presense > of a compressed gas unit in an aircraft would probably be a > significant safety hazard in itself. (The only compressed gas I'm > aware of inside the fuselage on newer model aircraft are the pilot's > oxygen bottles, and they are treated with great respect. Passenger > emergency oxygen on more recent aircraft are provided by perchlorate > candles, similar to emergency oxygen systems on submarines.) Actually there are also emergency portible oxygen bottles on most comercial A/C for emergency medical reasons. Additionally, the evacuation slides are power by an initial burst of compressed nitrogen. -- Peter Hollingsworth The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor E-Mail:gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu WWW: http://apts19.residence.gatech.edu From kls Thu Mar 21 02:37:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Honeywell, Inc. - DAS Date: 21 Mar 96 02:37:57 Message-ID: erfunc@aol.com (Erfunc) wrote: >I download ACARS transmissions here in the SFO area in California and I >have seen "Aims" used in what I think are maintenance messages. What does >"AIMS' litterally stand for? I emailed this to Ed Earlier, but for the benefit of anyone else that wondered, AIMS stands for Airplane Information Management System. AIMS is the Honeywell designed system that handles all navigation and management of the aircraft. Ken Ken Jongsma kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com Honeywell Defense Avionics Systems, Albuquerque, NM From kls Thu Mar 21 02:37:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominicana Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Mar 96 02:37:58 Message-ID: In article zelikman@snakemail.hut.fi (Mikael Zelikman) writes: > >snip >Regardless of the above, I doubt the wrong fuel was the cause in the >Dominican crash for the simple reason of finding it hard to believe >that they could find tens of thousands of lbs of avgas at any airport >these days! > I agree, except that the Dominican Republic is one of the few remaining bastions of piston-engined airliners in the world. Which is why the thought occurred to me in the first place. I admit I was reaching here, but I tend to distrust coincidences. How often does it occur that two airplanes operated by the same airline, departing from the same airport both have to return (or try to) within hours/minutes of each other. Hopefully all will become clear during the investigation. Brian Maddison From kls Thu Mar 21 02:37:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Date: 21 Mar 96 02:37:58 Message-ID: jpstrain@netcom.com (Jim Strain) writes: >What sort of mis-fueling did you envision? Are there now different >kinds of jet fuel? I know it's been a lot of years since I was a ramp >rat, but it still *smells* like the same stuff to me. The only fuels >I remember ever seeing (and they powered ALL kinds of aircraft) were >JP5 (successor to the old JP4) which was and is basically kerosene, >and 115/145 AV-GAS (high-octane aviation gasoline used in recips). Err... ""Jet Fuel"" aka Jet-A is kerosine. Inspected to the nth degree, but pure kero. [If it flunks any test, it's sold as kerosine.] But JP4 is different. It's military fuel -- Jet-A laced with tolene, naptha & other light end nasties. AFAIK, it's not now used for commercial a/c & if it ever was, it's been years. I've not heard of JP5; ISTM JP7 (or was it 8?) was SR-71 Blackbird fuel -- thick gummy yucky stuff when cold, but by the time it was heated [the fuel helped cool the skin], it flowed nicely. -- 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........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Thu Mar 21 02:37:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: Dominican Republic 757 crash (RISKS 17.82) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada Date: 21 Mar 96 02:37:59 Message-ID: In article , Robert Dorsett wrote: >I don't think the investigators have concluded anything--they may have >completed their first sweep of the DFDR and CVR recovered earlier this week, >but the accident investigation's just starting. > >More precisely, the comments today suggested that an erroneous speed >indication is an issue under investigation. There can be a significant >difference between that and saying the indicator is bad. > >For the "indicator" to be bad, both the pilots' airspeed indicators would >need to have failed. And the standby speed indicator. A highly improbable >event. Agreed but there is another possibility. What if the ONLY thing that went wrong was ONE of the angle of attack indicators. I'm just guessing here but I suspect the algorithms used to turn on a stick shaker are something like "if any AOA indicator shows close to critical angle ... shake stick" etc. I.e. the design is prudent, it assumes it is safer to warn of a stall when there isn't one than to not warn of a stall when there is one. Only problem is that at night when you are low and all of a sudden you get stall warning the natural reaction is to push forward. I doubt you'd even think to suspect the stall warning indicator, the first reaction would be to doubt the airspeed indicators .. all the time adding more and more forward pressure to try to stop the shaker ... 7000 feet is only a few 10's of seconds under these circumstances. Anyway could somebody who has more info on the stall warning inputs and how they are processed let us know if this is out to lunch or not? Its been bugging me all night that a single point of failure could result in this kind of event. -- Cheers, -- Peter Ashwood-Smith | email: petera@bnr.ca Bell Northern Research | work : (613)763-4534 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | home : (819)595-9032 From kls Thu Mar 21 02:37:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: Dominican Republic 757 crash (RISKS 17.82) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: apl Date: 21 Mar 96 02:37:59 Message-ID: In article Robert Dorsett, rdd@netcom.com writes: >For the "indicator" to be bad, both the pilots' airspeed indicators would >need to have failed. And the standby speed indicator. A highly improbable >event. Another thing bothers me. Don't pilots develop a "feel" for their aircraft? Wouldn't a pilot who knew the attitude and power settings of his aircraft be suspicious of an airspeed indication that was significantly wrong (I am NOT a pilot, so this is a real rather than a rhetorical question)? What about the stick shaker -- wouldn't this have given a stall warning (assuming it is an independent system)? From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 757 Crash / Airspeed Indicator Question Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:00 Message-ID: In article JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) writes: > >I don't understand why a malfunctioning airspeed indicator would >cause a 757 to crash. At the point in the flight when the pilots >discovered that there was a discrepancy, weren't they at full-throttle >anyway? If they weren't at maximum power, why didn't they go >to it immediately and put the nose down some when the stick started >shaking (didn't it shake for over a minute?)? Worse than stalling an airplane is going too fast. Stalls in of themselves are generally not an "end game" situation (if you have enough altitude) but if you're going too fast, you can overstress the airplane, incur extreme aerodynamic loads, and start to break off important surfaces. The Vmo pointer on this airplane would have been set to about 350 knots at 7,000 feet. According to AvLeak, the DFDR was indicating they were flying at 330 knots. So you have a crew at night, in clouds, flying on instruments, with two sets of instruments contradicting one another and two sets of warnings contradicting. If they did feel they were flying too fast, then lowering the nose would have bounced the airspeed needle past Vmo in a couple of seconds. Maybe they were getting buffeted, and didn't have the experience to distinguish between low- and high- speed buffet. Maybe they thought the stick shaker was indicating high-speed buffet and stall. If they were a typical crew of an advanced aircraft, most of their training and attention is spent on figuring out the FMS. Systems can suffer. Who knows? -- 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 Mar 21 02:38:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: thorlin@WILMA.BCASD.AZ.HONEYWELL.COM (LIFE'S TOUGH, IT'S TOUGHER WHEN YOU'RE STUPID) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Honeywell BCAS - Glendale, AZ Reply-To: thorlin@WILMA.BCASD.AZ.HONEYWELL.COM Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:00 Message-ID: In article , erfunc@aol.com (Erfunc) writes: >I download ACARS transmissions here in the SFO area in California and I >have seen "Aims" used in what I think are maintenance messages. What does >"AIMS' litterally stand for? Just a longshot, but I wonder if the ACARS transmission you intercepted might be comming from a 777. If so, it might be a reference to the Aircraft Information Management System, the Honeywell integrated avionics system used on the 777. Mike Thorlin Honeywell, Satellite Systems Ops Glendale, AZ From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:01 Message-ID: In article , Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) wrote: > This thread has been dead for some time, but just as a matter of > record, I understand that the A300 ST is only being produced in > limited numbers (at least initially) for internal Airbus use. It is > also called the "Super Flipper" and will replace the "Super Guppy" > that are currently (or have until recently? Just for the record, the new, outsized jet transport Airbus has built to haul their wings and fuselage sections around is called the "Beluga" after the whale of the same name. At least that's what some executives at Airbus told me a year ago. It may be that since then, it's name has been changed to "Super Flipper" to build on the "Super Guppy" theme. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdflyvc10@aol.com (JDflyVC10) Subject: **LOS ANGELES AIRLINER EXPO MAR.24** Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jdflyvc10@aol.com (JDflyVC10) Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:01 Message-ID: The next Los Angeles Airliner expo (LAAX) will be held this Sunday at the Proud Bird Resturant from 9am to 4pm. Gen. admin. is $4.00, and kids under 12 free. If you would like to get more information please email me. All the best John Dekker JDflyVC10@aol.com From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Rickydick) Subject: Re: Weight of cabin air at altitude Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:01 Message-ID: In mezei_jf@Eisner.DECUS.ORG (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: > >On a popular airline web site, there is a mention that on its 747-400s, >when at altitude, the amount of air compressed into the plane weights >one ton. That's just the price of comfort. Passengers like to breathe and stay warm. There is also a ton of sheet lead in the sidewalls of DC-10's, and at least the classic 747's. There is no better noise insulator. In case anybody wonders, it has been figured to cost $25 in fuel to carry a pound in an airliner for a year. Ricky From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dale Tuttle Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Michigan Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:02 Message-ID: Ray Carini wrote: > > Boeing used it's own money to develop and build the > Dash 80. Three weeks AFTER it's first flight, the > Air Force ordered 29 tanker versions designated as > the KC-135 Yes, but the Air Force order "validated" the design for other potential users as well as provided *lots* of cash for further development. Boeing clearly did, and continues to, solicit support from the government (rent-seeking behavior). Its not that the government developed the dash 80, government dollars clearly assisted its development and success. As per more recent government intervention, the U.S. government played a crucial role in securing orders for Boeing (and MDD) from Saudia Arabia and other Middle Eastern states (what states and the exact orders I don't recall). Subsidies are often difficult to characterize. Few subsidies are like what we see in the agricultural world (direct cash payments for certain behavior). But, military orders, political influence, and tax-breaks are all forms of subsidization. Boeing clearly does not receive out-right cash to develop aircraft. But the government helps sell its planes overseas (among other things)...which is a subsidy. Dale Tuttle From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: DECUServe Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:02 Message-ID: In article , Ray Carini writes: > Boeing used it's own money to develop and build the > Dash 80. Three weeks AFTER it's first flight, the > Air Force ordered 29 tanker versions designated as > the KC-135 It is a lot easier to go to your bankers and investors to ask for development money when the widget you are to develop will have military applications and you know that the military will need such a widget. So, while american companies may develop their products with private funds, I am sure that the potential military contracts are often big carrots that made the investors rush to invest. Notice the past tense in "made". If someone denies that companies that existed during the second world war, or duing some of the US wars (Vietnam, Korea or even Kuwait) did not receive nice plump gifts from the government (in the form of lucrative contracts to build missiles, maintain aircrafts etc) then the person will obviously deny that military spending is a form of subsidy. When the SCUD missile became a "star" in the Desert Storm war, why then did the stock of the company that makes it go up on Wall Street ? Because investors knew that a lot of SCUDS would be used in desert storm and that its high visibility might result in sales to other countries, hence more profits to the private company which result in higher dividends to the investors. In essence, the US government spent tax money which ended up partly to Wall Street investors. From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: DECUServe Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:03 Message-ID: There has been talk about how certain countries become unfairly competitive (hence the word subsidy) because of their currency. When the canadian dollar drops and makes our wood EXTREMELY competitive, the USA cries foul and decides that our way of allocating forests to timber companies is a subsidy and hence forces extra taxes on our exports to the USA (since they hurt USA based timber companies). But when the USA dollar drops and makes US products very competitive abroad, it is, of course, not considered a subsidy. My problem is that the USA mis-uses the term "subsidy" and has abused it so much that it is a case of the cry-wolf syndrome. When the USA says the word "subsidy", those outside that country just respond "yeah, another complaint from the USA about its own industry not being competitive". As far as currency control is concerned, some have stated that currency is purely inthe hands of the markets made of of thousands of small investors. 1- Some governments have direct control over currency exchange. 2- Some government have direct control over interest rates in their country. 3- Most governments have a good say in the interest rates (at least). 4- Almost all governments have control over monetary policies. All of the above have direct repercussions on the value of that country's currency against others. In the case of the USA, the chairman of the federal reserve may not report directly to the president and may have a mind of his own, but he still represents the USA government. He has enough power to affect other currencies as well. So, please do not state that currency values are dicated solely by market demands. The markets react to government monetary policies. And I will not even get in to the big speculators which can also help sway a currency one way or the other. From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: DECUServe Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:04 Message-ID: While I understand that in some cultures, the word subsidy is viewed as bad as "rape" or "incest", the members of such cultures must accept the fact that "subsidy" is not such a big sin elsewhere. In the USA, the word SUBSIDY is tagged to many actions. Lets try to break them down: -Direct investment with ownership shares. -Not any worse than private investment. A corporate entity (a government) invests its money in a venture that will bring back money and/or reduce the corporation's expenses and/or increase its revenus. For instance, for every job which is created as a result of that invesment, it costs the corporation (govt) less in unemployment benefits, and gets more revenus (taxes) from that employee and from the increased economic activity. Such an investment is similar to what parent corporations do when they invest in money loosing subsidiaries: tax breaks etc etc. -Loan garantees -No money is exchanged. The government simply provides collateral to to private investors/banks and garantees to pay back in case the helped firm cannot make its payments. -Actual loans. -The government then acts as a private banker to loan the money. The government uses its existing instruments (bonds, tax base etc) to get the money on behalf of the company. In the case f a government owned company, this is like the parent firm arranging for financing. I beleive that this is very common in Japan where conglomerates use their own banks to finance their own projects. When such a loan is payed pack, no subsidy has occured. If the interest payments were much lower than industry rates at the time, then you might consider that DIFFERENCE a subsidy, but not the loan itself. Furthermore, understand that a government may be able to afford lower interest rates on its loans given to companies if the increased economic activity will result in higher revenus for the government. -Seed money. While such money might be considered a subsidy when it comes from a government, how do you call it when a parent firm provides such a gift to a sibling company to start work on a project which may return lots of money later on ? -Outright subsidy. -Is it to provide a bridge until the company can restructure ? -Is it to allow the company to hire more people ? -Is it because the company's economic activity is too important and the nation as a whole cannot afford to loose it ? -Or is it to make the company's products unfairly competitive ? So, before you cry foul over Airbus subsidies, ask yourself if government money is going to the end user (customer) to allow for unfair pricing, or if such money is going to the local economy to create jobs etc. If the government money is going to Airbus to cover inefficiencies resulting from a government mandate, then you should view this as: Airbus has a contract with various governments to spread economic activity over a few countries, as a result of this contract, Airbus gets paid $x. This does not necessarily result in Airbus products being unfairly priced. If Boeing gets a tax break to locate its next plant in a certain state, is that considered a subsidy ? Of course not, you would say that the state government made a wise business decision of giving Boeing a special rate because of the economic activity which will result in that state. I do not know if Boeing itself has benefitted from such deals, but a LOT of american firms have. Even canadian firms were lured to the USA with such incentives. From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Hughes Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:04 Message-ID: In article , Jim Tilbey writes > The >BAC1-11 was about the only success story, because although built on >the same principal, for BEA once again, it took a lot of people by >suprise when it broke into the US market, especially since there was >strong competition from the DC-9. The BAC1-11 was Not built for BEA, initially. They only bought 1-11s with the launch of the 500-series. The US was always seen as a prime target of the 1-11 sales team. The launch customer was British United, with an order for 10 with options on a further 5 on 9 May 1961. At the same time Ozark placed a letter of intent for 5 aircraft. Frontier committed to 6 in June. These US orders came to naught because the US CAB threatened to withdraw local service route subsidies for both operators if they proceded with the contracts. The firm order placed by Braniff for 6 aircraft on 23 October 1961 was the first time that a US airline had ordered a non-US airliner off the drawing board. Mohawk ordered 4 aircraft on 24 July 1962. Bonanza Airlines ordered three 1-11s in November 1962, but these were cancelled the following February again because of the US CAB who refused a loan guarantee for the purchase. Strangely (!) they then agreed to guarantee the loan for purchase of DC9s!!! By the time the prototype 1-11 was rolled out there was an orderbook for 60 aircraft, none of them for either of the nationalised state corporations (BEA and BOAC). The prototype flew four months after the DC9 was launched, the DC9 flying 18 months after the 1-11. BEA were the launch customer for the stretched -500 series but this was not until 27 January 1967 when an order for 18 was placed with an option on 6 more. Details extracted from The One-Eleven Story by Richard J Church, published by Air-Britain ISBN 0 85130 221 1 -- Pete Hughes From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: khowie@accessone.com (Keith Howie) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AccessOne Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:05 Message-ID: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) wrote: >Excuse my ignorance, but could someone *PLEASE* post a comprehensive list of >the members of that consortium and a note on whether each member is: > -privately held > -crown corporation (shares owned by government) > -division of government (operates out of govt budgets) This sort of information is readily available to anyone who wants to got to the trouble of looking it up, but here goes again: Airbus members are: (1) Aerospatiale, owned by French government. Consistent money-loser, but government has plans to fix that by merging it with Dassault, a privately held company which just as consistently makes money. Has a 37.9 per cent stake in Airbus. (2) Daimler-Benz Aerospace, private German company, also has a 37.9 per cent stake in Airbus. Generally well-run but just lost its shirt on the Fokker fiasco. (3) British Aerospace, private British company, has a 20 per cent stake in Airbus. Just came off one of its most successful years ever, capping one of the most amazing comebacks in British business history. Company's CEO quoted in today's (March 1) Wall Street Journal as saying that until Airbus gets its house in order, it should forget about the AXX. (4) CASA, a Spanish company, has a 4.2 per cent stake in Airbus. I don't know what its ownership is. >As I understand it, a consortium is a bunch of companies getting together to >build something. A consortium does not necessarily mean that it is government >owned or controlled. Airbus is legally, under French law, a "Groupemente d'Interet Economique" (CIE, or "grouping of economic interest"). As such, partner companies can join together without actually merging. No financial reports are required to be made public. This is one reason why discussions on Airbus subsidies often generate more heat than light. Nobody knows the facts. If you want more detailed infromation, go hire a French lawyer. >Just because the EU governments decided to team up and produce something which >could compete against the USA and gave mandates to selected companies to get >together and build something... (snip) I don't think this is an accurate description of what actually happened, but I don't want to get into a squabble about it. >So, until someone posts a comprehensive list of members of Airbus, and >what type and how much of government financial help was given out, it is rather >pointless to debate Airbus based on the urban myth that it is government owned, >government controlled, subsidised to the neck, highly inefficient, staffed by >bureaucrats etc etc etc. The Wall Street Journal article mentioned above alludes to some of the problems with the Airbus legal structure and how those problems are affecting the AXX decision. Anyone who is interested should read it in its entirety, but I'll try to summarize as follows: The AXX will take 9 to 12 billion US dollars to develop. Only a third of that can come from government assistance per the US-EU agreement on such matters. Private investment will be necessary but potential investors don't like the present Airbus legal structure. A committee is studying the problem and is to make its report in June. Keith From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rching@saclink1.csus.edu (Russell K Ching) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: California State University Sacramento Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:05 Message-ID: Andrew Sapuntzakis (andrewsa@comm.mot.com) wrote: : In addition to 707 production depending on the KC135, one source : (which I can dig up) I have read claims the DC-10 did not have enough : (commercial) orders to justify production until the U.S. gov't : stepped in with a request for the KC-10. I don't think so. The KC-10 went into operation in 1980, about 10 years after the first production DC-10 went into service. Yes, the USAF is the largest operator of DC-10s (at 60), but (no) they didn't save the project. BTW, the DC-10 was selected from a pool of candidates which included the 747, 767 and (possibly to my recollection) the L1011. I'd be interested to see your source, though. Russ From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dale Tuttle Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Michigan Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:06 Message-ID: Terry Schell;x3332 wrote: > > In tnguyen@imag.fr (Nguyen Gia Toan) writes: > > >To add another argument to the subsidies debate, why not talk about the > >exchange parity between US and European currencies ? > >Economists agree worldwide that the US dollar is not on par with its real > >value in terms of trade markets and economic value on international > >financial markets. > >This looks very much like (not so) hidden subsidies doesn't it ? > > Correct me if I am wrong here... > > but US currency if free to vary in international markets, i.e., US > currency's value is based on market economics. If you feel that there > is inequity between European and US currencies, perhaps you should > look carefully at the system European nations use to constrain the > value of their currencies. The U.S. government, as do most governments, attempts to influence the value of its currency. However, since the demise of the Bretton Woods regime in 1971, governments no longer have the capacity to dictate, or set, the value of their currency. They try to influence exchange rates, but the success of these activities is mixed at best. In fact, overt central bank activity to "prop-up" a currency often leads to even more problems as the market reacts to a "crisis" atmosphere. Thus, most OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) states try not to "use a heavy hand" in the market place because it can lead to more problems. In short, governments influcence exchange rates, but the market-place sets them. But remember that the market reacts to government activity (as well as private activities of course). Dale Tuttle From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: chucks1067@aol.com (ChuckS1067) Subject: Re: An Accelerometer in Paradise Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: chucks1067@aol.com (ChuckS1067) Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:06 Message-ID: >..snip I activated the EDRs for the trip home. The following >posting is a report of the results. > >Snip.. > It gets interesting about a half-hour after the plane got airborne. Three shocks, > a minute or so apart, with maximum values of 10.1, 9.13, and 5.429Gs! Obviously the pilot perfomed a loop, roll and a spin with such skill that you hardly knew it. It can be done (honest)... I know of pilots who are so good that they loop, roll and spin and don't know they did it until they landed. Then they remember, it has to do with the G's pulled... (it's called GRIMLS ... Gravity Related Induced Memory Loss Syndrome. Many people suffer from this if they live in low or high gravity areas. Some neighborhoods have less gravity than others, that's why model airplanes fly better in in these areas. Therefore if a pilot pulls positive G's he will remember having done more than he did , negative G's produce the opposite effect. However reports have shown that since pilots usually pull +G's they tend to remember more about the flight than they actually did. I'm sure if you would have asked the pilot of your airliner about GRIMLS he would know about it. >. The 10.1 G one had two peaks, dropping slightly between in >about 0.1 seconds Just shows how easy it is to pull 10 G's if your seat is inclined and your tray is up... From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: hedley@3do.COM (Hedley Davis) Subject: Re: An Accelerometer in Paradise Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The 3DO Company, Redwood City, CA Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:07 Message-ID: In article , Ronald James Wanttaja wrote: >Recently, I completed some business travel to a remote location. For my >return trip, I was to transport two Environmental Data Recorders (EDRs). You should definitely take one to the new Denver Airport. That is, of course, if they are not worth too much money. :-) From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: "fred (f.g.) black" Subject: Re: An Accelerometer in Paradise Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Nortel Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:07 Message-ID: In article , Ian Judge wrote: >Ronald James Wanttaja (wanttaja@chinook.halcyon.com) wrote: > >: For the entire travel period, the maximum G level was: >: X = 6.167 >: Y = 6.889 >: Z = 10.10 > >: These sound high, but remember, most of them are short-lived events with >: not much energy in them. It should be noted that I carried a china teapot >: in the same suitcase as the EDR (wrapped in bubble wrap); it arrived >: unbroken. > >These sound particularly high when you consider that the maximum g-loading >of a B757 is 3g. Approx 3 yrs ago Caledonian severely bent a B757 with a >heavy landing of 2.76g. The aircraft took 3 weeks to prepare for a ferry >flight ... The max loading for the entire plane may be 3g, but that doesn't apply to something inside the plane, particularly if it can move around. I think I read somewhere that the peak deccelleration of a metal box pushed off of a table and landing on a concrete floor can exceed 100g! -- Fred G. Black, P. Eng. E-mail: black@nortel.ca Nortel North America PP-ASEL,G Phone: (613)-763-7452 (W) P.O. Box 3511 StationC (613)-823-6017 (H) Ottawa, Ontario My opinions only Canada K1Y 4H7 From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: An Accelerometer in Paradise Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:07 Message-ID: In article Ian Judge writes: >These sound particularly high when you consider that the maximum g-loading >of a B757 is 3g. Approx 3 yrs ago Caledonian severely bent a B757 with a >heavy landing of 2.76g. I would rate a hard landing as a "collision" with a large immobile object, and wouldn't use it to generalize the aircraft's ability to handle high loads. If one wanted to push this implausible premise, one could also argue that a hard landing loading indication could be viewed as negative G's. I.e., the airplane going down and the gear pushing the airplane up. Negative G ratings, in any event, are normally quite low, usually about -1 G's. In practice, Boeing aircraft have been known to be incredibly overdesigned, and can take significant beatings. 747s have been clocked in excess of 7 g's, which is usually when the FDR or DFDR stops recording reliable data. Modern design practices can throw all this in question: fly-by-wire, for example, may be used by overoptimistic engineers to save money by trimming down the structural requirements. Fly-by-wire can also be used to save structural costs by (for example) allowing smaller control surfaces, and increasing aircraft instability, which is artificially controlled. This has operational benefits as well. Load alleviation functions can pave the way to a lighter, weaker wing. Computer-aided design techniques may incline engineers to think that they have a "precise" understanding of real- world requirements. And Simulation is also being increasingly used to justify and validate design decisions. It's an evolving area. FBW's applicability to these areas is thus far limited, but the 777 was completely computer-designed. In the future, at least, I suspect we won't read about 7 G recovery maneuvers much. -- 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 Mar 21 02:38:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:07 Message-ID: In article , bdo@artos.fb12.tu-berlin.de (Burkhard Domke) wrote: > You should drop the short-term SUD for Stretched Upper Deck like > Boeing did when someone told them that SUD in medical terms stands for > Sudden Unexplained Death. The designation then was changed to EUD for > Extended Upper Deck. We still refer to the extended upper deck at Boeing as a "stretched upper deck." However, the term is rarely used within the company these days, as the model designations 747-300 and 747-400 automatically imply that the plane has the extended upper deck. Since the only model we currently produce is the 747-400, the "stretched upper deck" term has virtually disappeared from the Boeing vocabulary. Of course, the 747-400 Freighter has the original upper deck configuration, but the freighter is so different from the passenger version, there is no chance of confusion. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Jetstream out of favor? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:08 Message-ID: Is there a technical reason why so many (41 to be precise) BAe Jetstreams are now parked in the desert at Kingman, AZ or is the type being replaced with more fuel efficent technology/higher seating capacity? Since they are from various airlines (TW Express, United Express, American Eagle, Reno Air Express, Sierra Expressway, US Air Express, Dolphin Airlines) I can't attribute the gathering to the failure of one particular airline! Steve From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeckstei@rutcor.rutgers.edu (Jonathan Eckstein) Subject: 757-300? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rutgers University Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:08 Message-ID: I have seen several references to something called a 757-300 and/or 757-300X recently. Is this a "stretched" 757? Is there a commitment to build such a beast? From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757-300? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:08 Message-ID: >I have seen several references to something called a 757-300 >and/or 757-300X recently. Is this a "stretched" 757? Is there >a commitment to build such a beast? The idea keeps coming up. About three years ago Boeing was talking about a 23'4" stretch, which with a 30" pitch means about 9 more rows or 54 more seats, ignoring added galley and/or lavatory needs, and assuming only additional window exits. Look in the archives of this group (at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html) for more info on past versions. Recently, the idea seems to have come back more seriously, and Boeing seems to be saying that it may be the next launch after the new 747 (-500x and -600x) models. One driving force is that the 757-200 is popular with inclusive tour operators, but is "overranged" for their needs. In other words, even cramming in as many tourists as they can fit and loading sufficient fuel, they're still well below MGTOW and maximum fuel capacity. Unlike scheduled carriers, they don't carry much freight, and they don't have much call for greater range (not unlike cargo flights, an occasional fuel stop isn't a major problem for their payload), so the 757 offers them capabilities they can't use. Stretching the 757 lets them add more seats, thereby taking advantage of the 757's full lift capability. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Abshier Subject: Re: Vickers Viscounts in the US? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:08 Message-ID: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca wrote: >>Can anyone help me compile a list of Vickers Viscounts still in existence >>in the US? >From what I understand the Mid Atlantic Air Museum also keeps >one on the east coast in flying condition. >Supplementary question - any still airworthy ? Your own question was answered. MAAM does fly a Viscount 745 (I believe) on the airshow circuit. No other Viscounts are flying in the US that I know of. A Mexican new entrant operated one for a short time but sold it to an African company. Andy From kls Thu Mar 21 02:38:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Vickers Viscounts in the US? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:08 Message-ID: Ray Charles lost his Viscount in a take-off accident in the late 1970s. If I remember right, the accident took place at Lafayette, Indiana. My strongest memory of the accident report is the part where they describe helping Ray off of the airplane, as he is quite blind. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mar 21 02:38:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: demetre.argiro@actronix.com (Demetre Argiro) Subject: Re: Vickers Viscounts in the US? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Joint Railway Association of Georgia Date: 21 Mar 96 02:38:08 Message-ID: In article , BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca wrote: > In article > astracon@aol.com (Astracon) writes: > >Can anyone help me compile a list of Vickers Viscounts still in existence > >in the US? > N7471 at Reading Pa (Mid-Atlantic Museum) > Brian Maddison I've seen this one. I think it's a Capital Airlines 745 "Redbird" Wish to God I had the money, I'd make one flyable. One of the best airplanes I ever had the pleasure of riding. Some of the Capital pilots that I knew would let me ride in the cockpit. Things were a *lot* different back then. From news Tue Mar 5 08:18:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.mech.fluids Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: Lih-Yenn Ong Subject: **Questions** on Ground Effect Vehicles Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom3.netcom.com Organization: Departmeny of Mech. Eng., Imperial College, London Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 02:55:43 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu I am trying to read up on Ground Effect Vehicles and would appreciate it if someone can point to the relevant journals, papers, books or WWW URLs on this topic. Although the concept is sound, why isn't there any commercial application? What are the costs involved in designing such a vehicle? Similar to that of an aircraft? How would FAA look upon the cerfication issue? [Moderator's note: It's hard for me to believe that there's no commercial application when I "flew" from France to the UK on a hovercraft in 1976. British-built, certified by the CAA. Go down to Dover and watch them. MFS] Thanks in advance. __________________________________________________________________ Lih-Yenn Ong Research Student Thermofluids Section Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine London SW7 2BX UK Email : L.Y.ONG@ic.ac.uk From news Thu Mar 7 16:21:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.mech.fluids Path: ditka!daver!news.packet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.neca.com!chi-news.cic.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: jcbowman@aol.com (JCBowman) Subject: Re: **Questions** on Ground Effect Vehicles Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom22.netcom.com Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:27:39 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu >I am trying to read up on Ground Effect Vehicles and would appreciate >it if someone can point to the relevant journals, papers, books or WWW >URLs on this topic. Although the concept is sound, why isn't there any >commercial application? What are the costs involved in designing such >a vehicle? Similar to that of an aircraft? How would FAA look upon >the cerfication issue? Actually, if you could get a ground effect fleet running, the cost per seat mile or cost per ton mile would actually be cheaper than a non ground effect plane. The performance equations tell you that it would be a slower trip, but that's why it's cheaper. It's a power relationship (currently supertankers are the most efficient in terms of power required and power used). You plot Transport Efficiency (product of weight and speed divided by power to operate) vs speed. For aircraft, Trans Eff is the Lift/Drag ratio in cruise. If you plot all forms of trans., you find a boundary beyond which nothing appears- it slopes down from left to right. This is the technology factor line. With time, it moves up and to the right. As for the FAA look up the FAR's. They would have to follow all altitude restrictions, but efficient ground effect flight can only occur over large expanses of flat land (Russia has lots of this) or water. It would most likely be a seaplane, so look up the seaplane stuff in the FAR's- I did. However, some of those flare craft don't fall under FAR's. They can't climb too high (maybe 10 feet) so they fall under Coast Guard Regulations. My senior project a few years ago was a ground effect design inspired by the Russian Ekranoplan. I am posting these references for anyone who is interested. Some are not related to technical material but rather are economic reasons for such vehicles. "Technical and Economic Assessment of Span-Distributed Loading Cargo Aircraft Concepts" Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. Contract NAS1-13963 June 76 Committee on Productivity of Marine Terminals, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. "Improving Productivity in US Marine Container Terminals." National Academy Press, Wash DC 1986 Keith-Lucas, D. "The Relative Effectiveness of Large Landplanes and Flying Boats" 2nd International Aeronautical Conference. New York May 24-27 1949 Dane, A. "Wingships" Pop Mech May 1992 Balow, F.A. et al "Design and Evaluation of a Midsize Wing-in- Ground Effect Transport" AIAA Aircraft Design, Systems, and Operations Meeting AIAA Paper 93-3952 Aug 11-13 1993 Fink, M, Lastinger, J. Aerodynamic Characterisitics of Low-Aspect Ratio Wing in Close proximity to the Ground" NASA Tech Note D-926 Reeves, J.M. Ram Wings- a future? Proceedings of the Ram Wing and Ground Effect Craft Conference May 19, 1987 Staufenbiel, R.W. "On the design of stable ram wing vehicles" Proceedings of the Ram wing and Ground Effect Conf May 19, 1987 Gallington, R.W. "Power Augmentation of Ram wings" Proceedings of the Ram Wing and Ground Effect Conf May 19, 1987 Papadales, B.S. Jr. An Evaluation of a 2D Power Augmented Wing in Ground Effect Model Under Static and Dynamic Freestream Conditions DTNSRCDC (David Taylor Naval Ship Research ...) ASED - 353 June 76 Ando, S. PARWIG performance prediction during acceleration from water-borne to airborne. Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences Vol 34, Number 105 Jan 1991 Woodward, J.B. "Marine Gas Turbines" Wiley-Interscience 1975 Moore, J.W. et al "Conceptual Design Study of Power Augmented Ram Wing-in-Ground Effect Aircraft" AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology Conf Los Angeles AIAA paper 78-1466 Aug 21-23 1978 Saarlas, M. Steam and Gas Turbines for Marine Propulsion. Naval Institute Press Annapolis 1978 Ando, S. Critical Review of Design Philosophies for Recent Transport WIG Effect Vehicles. Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences. Volume 33, number 99 may 1990 Carson B.H. Experimental Observations of the 2D, Power Augmented RAM WING operated statically over water. AIAA/ SNAME Advanced Marine Vehicles Conference AIAA paper 78-751 April 17-19 1978 Good Luck, Jason (jcbowman@aol.com) From news Thu Mar 7 18:47:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.mech.fluids Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: **Questions** on Ground Effect Vehicles Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom22.netcom.com Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:27:30 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Smithsonian Air and Space magazine had a very interesting article on Russian ground effect vehicle research including pictures of the famous Caspian Sea Monster. The magazine was published in the last two years--I just took a quick trip to our repository but the issue was gone so I can't say exactly what the month was. In article , Lih-Yenn Ong writes: > > I am trying to read up on Ground Effect Vehicles and would appreciate > it if someone can point to the relevant journals, papers, books or WWW > URLs on this topic. Although the concept is sound, why isn't there any > commercial application? What are the costs involved in designing such > a vehicle? Similar to that of an aircraft? How would FAA look upon > the cerfication issue? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From news Thu Mar 7 18:47:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.mech.fluids Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: Michael Carley Subject: Re: **Questions** on Ground Effect Vehicles Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom22.netcom.com Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:27:57 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Lih-Yenn Ong writes: >I am trying to read up on Ground Effect Vehicles and would appreciate >it if someone can point to the relevant journals, papers, books or WWW >URLs on this topic. Although the concept is sound, why isn't there any >commercial application? What are the costs involved in designing such >a vehicle? Similar to that of an aircraft? How would FAA look upon >the cerfication issue? Take a look in last week's Sunday Times. There's a report on a thing called the Amphistar with a photo. It's Russian designed and built and really a very smart design. It uses twin propellers, one either side of the nose, which can be tilted (a la V-22) to blow air under the lifting surfaces. That way you can get vertical take-off. Cost is about 350,000 squids (around $600,000). I have a slightly different question. Since this craft flies quite adequately, would it be possible to stick a pair of ``real'' wings on it and use it as an out-of-ground-effect aeroplane. You could use the ground effect surfaces for vertical take-off and conventional wings for flight. You get VTOL without the horrors of the trying to make a V-22 fly. -- "You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John) Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie Home page From news Thu Mar 7 18:47:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.mech.fluids Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: royalty@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Chuck Royalty) Subject: Re: **Questions** on Ground Effect Vehicles Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom22.netcom.com Organization: The Boeing Company Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:28:29 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu In article , Lih-Yenn Ong wrote: > >I am trying to read up on Ground Effect Vehicles and would appreciate >it if someone can point to the relevant journals, papers, books or WWW I remember reading (maybe within the last year?) an article about ?Russian? development of very large ground effect vehicles for transoceanic cargo. Looked a lot like huge airliners, but travelled in ground effect at speeds slower than jet transports and much faster than ships. If no one else has a reference easily at hand, I'll try to dig it up. Chuck Royalty royalty@bcstec.ca.boeing.com From news Sun Mar 10 14:41:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.mech.fluids Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.erinet.com!netcom.com!rdd From: feyereisen_thea@htc.honeywell.com (T. Feyereisen) Subject: Re: **Questions** on Ground Effect Vehicles Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom10.netcom.com Organization: Honeywell Technology Center Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 19:04:47 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu > In article , Lih-Yenn Ong wrote: > > > >I am trying to read up on Ground Effect Vehicles and would appreciate > >it if someone can point to the relevant journals, papers, books or WWW > > I remember reading (maybe within the last year?) an article about > ?Russian? development of very large ground effect vehicles for > transoceanic cargo. Looked a lot like huge airliners, but travelled > in ground effect at speeds slower than jet transports and much faster > than ships. If no one else has a reference easily at hand, I'll try > to dig it up. There is a company in the DC area called "Aerocon" which has been doing commercial application research on jumbo (and mid-size) wing-in-ground-effect aircraft for a couple years. Unfortunately they haven't been getting much support from our government. From my limited knowledge of wingships (I went to grad school with a wingship junkie), Russia is clearly the leader in this research. Commercial applications of a superjumbo wingship appear particualrly suitable for the Asian market. Popular Mechanics had a cool cover article on wingships a couple years ago that I highly recommend you check out. Sorry I can't provide the date. -- From news Sun Mar 24 01:20:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.mech.fluids Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!hodes.com!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: Gary Walsh Subject: Re: **Questions** on Ground Effect Vehicles Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom18.netcom.com Organization: Hitachi Data Systems Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 02:47:43 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu royalty@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Chuck Royalty) wrote: > >In article , Lih-Yenn Ong wrote: >> >>I am trying to read up on Ground Effect Vehicles and would appreciate >>it if someone can point to the relevant journals, papers, books or WWW > >I remember reading (maybe within the last year?) an article about >?Russian? development of very large ground effect vehicles for >transoceanic cargo. Looked a lot like huge airliners, but travelled >in ground effect at speeds slower than jet transports and much faster >than ships. If no one else has a reference easily at hand, I'll try >to dig it up. A smaller Russian vehicle even made it into the UK national newspapers. It could carry around a dozen passengers plus cargo at a cruising speed of around 80 knots (according to the article!). It looked like a small passenger aircraft with pontoons (sorry if the terminology is a little off). The difference was that the props could be rotated between horizontal and vertical, and there was a large aerofoil between the pontoons (although you couldn't see it in the accompanying photograph). I think the idea was that the props could be oriented to enhance the ground effect at low speeds. The article appeared a couple of weeks ago. -- _____________________________________________________________________ Gary Walsh E-mail: Gary_Walsh@spire.hds.co.uk Open Systems Product Specialist Phone: +44 1753 618806 Hitachi Data Systems Fax: +44 1753 618576 Sefton Park Stoke Poges Disclaimer: My views, not HDS' Buckinghamshire SL2 4HD England _____________________________________________________________________ From news Sun Mar 24 01:20:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!hodes.com!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: Judah Milgram Subject: seek info re MIL-STD 1374 Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom18.netcom.com Organization: U. of MD Rotorcraft Center Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 02:47:54 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Might someone be able to provide bibliography citation info for MIL-STD-1374? All I know about this document is that it provides a standardized method for tabulating aircraft weight data. gratefully, Judah Milgram milgram@eng.umd.edu From news Sun Mar 24 12:12:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.techniques.testing.misc,alt.sci.physics.acoustics,sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news1.digital.com!decwrl!amd!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: r.r.antcliff@larc.nasa.gov (Rich Antcliff) Subject: Aerospace Sciences Meeting Call Online Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom19.netcom.com Organization: NASA LaRC Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 16:48:30 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu 35th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit http://mstb.larc.nasa.gov/ASM/ASM.html <---------------- January 6-9, 1997 Reno Hilton Reno, NV Abstract Deadline: May 17 , 1996 The Aerospace Sciences Meeting is the largest of the AIAA technical conferences and one of the preeminent technical gatherings within the entire spectrum of aerospace activities. The multidisciplinary character of this meeting provides an ideal forum for scientists and engineers from industry, government, and academia to share and disseminate scientific knowledge and research results. The 35h AIAA Aerospace Meeting and Exhibit will again place emphasis on fundamental science issues. Participation by the basic research community is especially encouraged. The meeting will feature both invited and contributed presentations that address the future scientific and technical challenges facing the aerospace community. Technical papers are presented by authors chosen via a competitive selection process based on peer review, as described below, and invitation of papers of the highest quality to emphasize major trends and accomplishments in various aerospace disciplines. To facilitate simultaneous sessions, papers will begin on the hour and half hour. Six to eight 30-minute papers per session are planned (20 minutes for presentation with 10 minutes for question and discussion). The technical committees sponsoring this meeting, areas in which papers are solicited, and the names and addresses of the meeting organizers to whom abstracts should be sent are listed in the Call for Papers. Every effort will be made to provide uniformly rigorous evaluations and acceptance rates for all sessions. Please review the Rules for Abstract/Manuscript Submission if you are interested in submitting a paper. We also allow electronic submission of abstracts for many TCs. General inquiries concerning the program, format, or policies of the meeting and suggestions for special high-interest information presentations should be directed to the Conference General Chair: Dr. Richard R. Antcliff NASA Langley Research Center MS 493 Hampton, VA 23681 804/864-4606 * 804/864-8315 fax email: r.r.antcliff@larc.nasa.gov From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:01 Message-ID: Is it true that cargo is often "volume" limited rather than gross-weight limited? Also, is it true that the MD11F is better-designed than the Boeing 747s, from the "volume"-limitation perspective? Thnks Krish From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:02 Message-ID: >Is it true that cargo is often "volume" limited rather than gross-weight >limited? It can go either way, depending on the cargo. If you're flying a load of fresh flowers for Valentine's Day, you'll probably fill the volume of most cargo aircraft before you hit any weight limit. On the other hand, if you're flying cases of wine or disk drives, weight limits will probably be hit before the volume is filled. > is it true that the MD11F is better-designed than the Boeing 747s, > from the "volume"-limitation perspective? I don't think it's a matter of which is "better-designed" -- I doubt many people would say a Concorde is better-designed than a 747 for airmail because it's faster. The 747 did grow out of a proposal for what became the C5 Galaxy, and putting the cockpit above the main deck was done with cargo in mind, but the 747 and MD-11 were both designed mainly as passenger aircraft, with suitability for cargo a secondary consideration. In terms of their suitability, I think you may have it backwards -- the MD-11F is volume limited while the 747-400F is weight limited. Here are some cargo capacities from AW&ST: 747-400C 103,240 lbs 747-400F 268,300 lbs MD-11C 144,300 lbs Unfortunately, they don't list the MD-11F, but the above suggests that it should be a pretty healthy fraction of the 747-400F. They don't list volumes, either, but clearly the 747 has a much higher volume because of the wider fuselage and greater interior length. (Length is greater both because the aircraft is about ten feet longer and because the cockpit is taking up some of that space.) A carrier like FedEx transports a lot of documents, and paper is heavy for its size, so their flights will most likely be weight limited. A 747-400F costs significantly more than an MD-11F (probably around $140 million vs $100 million in very rough terms) and costs more to operate due to the additional engine to feed and maintain, plus the higher weight which turns into higher landing fees. In return, FedEx gets an aircraft that can carry much higher volumes but only somewhat more weight. Since they're already limited by the weights, the extra volume is of no value to them, which is why they're dumping their 747s (older ones; they've never owned -400s) and gobbling up MD-11s. The 747-400F probably has a slight edge in range over the MD-11F (both passenger and combi versions do), but this isn't an advantage either. Unlike passengers, cargo isn't bothered by a fuel stop somewhere along the way. Their are fairly few routes where a 747-400F can eliminate a fuel stop as compared to even an older 747-200F, never mind an MD-11F, which appears to be one reason why the 747-400F hasn't been a runaway success. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bong Subject: md-11ER Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:03 Message-ID: I red an article in the news today and I stumbled an article that says that airbus lunched a short A330 which will compete direcly to the 767 and the md-11. In my own opinion, the airbus was wrong at that one. Also, will someone tell how many thousand of pounds of fuel will the md-11 consume in an hour and will it be posible to to fly 6500 nm and carry a 80000 lbs. of payload? From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: varsity@pipeline.com (Chris) Subject: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Pipeline Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:03 Message-ID: A friend of mine and I (for our own amusement) are discussing plans for our own airline. One idea of mine was to use the upper deck of 747-300 and -400 aircraft on very long hauls for an ultra-exclusive first class product. As part of that we discussed the feasibility of using a separate upper level in hub terminals for these passengers, and allowing them to board from that level directly to the upper level of the '47. Anticipating the challenge of operating a 40-foot-high Jetway (R), I sketched a custom version of same for these aircraft. My friend maintains that the upper deck doors are designed to be used as emergency exits only and could not be easily modified for routine use. He said that the slide housing blocks the entrance. I knew this was true on the -100 and -200 but are the -300 and -400 the same? My cutaways do not elaborate on how the door operates. Any information would be appreciated. From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:04 Message-ID: >My friend maintains that the upper deck doors are designed to be used as >emergency exits only and could not be easily modified for routine use. He >said that the slide housing blocks the entrance. I knew this was true on >the -100 and -200 but are the -300 and -400 the same? The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small hatch above the cockpit. (I assume the same is true for the -400F which does not have the long upper deck.) The upper deck door on the -300 and -400 is hinged at the top and swings up, as opposed to swinging out and to the side as on the main deck doors, or pulling up and into the fuselage like on a DC-10. I don't know where the slide housing is located offhand, but I suspect the upward opening door would make an already troublesome jetway design even more cumbersome. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FLKF50A@prodigy.com (Mark Meltzer) Subject: How many flyable connies today? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:04 Message-ID: Does anyone have a list of all the presently airworthy Connies? I know of the following: a VC 121 and an EC 121 at Camarillo CA, The MATS 121 at AZ, The Chino Planes of Fame Connie (present location unknown), The Eisenhower Presidential 749 somehwere in AZ, The Save a Connie 121 in Kansas City, The Australian Connie recently flown to Australia from Tuscon AZ. Any others? I've heard rumors that one is still active in Central America. From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: FT: Aerospatiale on Airbus Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PREST, University of Manchester Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:04 Message-ID: The Financial Times today (21 March 1996) publishes a report stating that the Aerospatiale, the French partner in Airbus Industrie (AI), has welcomed the German government's call to incorporate AI "into a regular company this summer and launch the 550-seat A3XX as a challenge to Boeing." According to the report, Norbert Lammert, the German government's coorddinator for aerospace affairs, earlier in the year appeared to make the incorporation of AI a precondition for the launch of the A3XX programme. The report also states that the French transport minister, Bernard Pons, "had urged such a move in February." This report follows others which stated British Aerospace (BAe) was also pushing for such a move [a long standing objective for BAe - AD], and wanted to increase its participation in AI if and wheen the move was made. - -- COMMENT: >From _my_point_of_view_ there are two interesting issues here, both of which relate to the peculiarities of AI's current legal structure and the impact of any change on AI's ability to effectively compete in the world commercial aircraft market: 1. Financial Transparency: AI's legal structure as a Groupement d'Interet Economique (GIE), a legal structure created under French law in 1967, had the considerable advantage of not being under any obligation to publish a meaningfull set of accounts. Though AI always claimed that the information was available in its partner companies' accounts (Aerospatiale, BAe, CASA and DASA), such information has in fact, with very few exceptions, been almost completely obscured (having recently trawled through their annual reports, I can confirm this from personal experience). It thus became very difficult to make any assessment of AI's commercial performance (costs, profits, etc.) As a "regular company", in the words of the FT report, AI will have to face up to public scrutiny by investors. In addition, the flow of "launch aid" (subsidies) received by AI will be exposed to scrutiny to a much greater extent than it is today. Exactly what benefits this conveys upon Airbus is unclear to me (but see below). 2. A peculiarity of the GIE structure is that each partner is jointly and severally liable for the _whole_ consortium's liabilities. I sem to remember that during Conferences coinciding with the Paris Airshow in 1993, senior Airbus managers claimed this significantly enhanced the consortium's crediblity with customers, since it decreased the likelyhood of AI defaulting on its commitments (there was also a widespread perception that AI was essentially a 'sovereign risk', i.e. it would ultimately always be bailed out by the partner governments). As a "regular company", persumably wih limited liability, AI forgoes at least part of this advantage. Anyway, if all the major Airbus partners (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) no longer seem worried about these issues, they must obviously be satisfied that the advantages of incorporation outweigh the benefits. That still leaves the most important question of all: why incorporate at all? In my opinion, an important contributory factor in this has been the long held belief of the German and UK governments that they needed to impose some discipline on AI (read "on the French") to force it into a realistic attitute towards its costs, and the two governments' desire to limit their financial exposure to the consortium. The current French government was bound to be more receptive towards these arguments than its predecessors, and it was perhaps a case of seizing the opportunity (remember, the French have also recently announced a major rationalisation of their defence industry -- civil aviation falls under the purview of the Direction Generale de l'Armement (DGA) and the French have traditionally considered civil aviation an adjunct to the defence industry). Regards, A. -- Alain Deckers Tel: +44 (0)161 275 5943 PREST, The Universiy of Manchester Fax: +44 (0)161 273 1123 Manchester M13 9PL Email: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk United Kingdom From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:05 Message-ID: What are the chances that AA is going to go for the Airbus since they were on the original "gang" that helped define (along with Delta, btw) the 777? I've been waiting with baited breath for the AA and/or DL announcement of their respective 777 orders, and inthe case of AA, for it to be the launch order for the 777-100. From what I hear (more and more) DL is very unhappy with the MD-11, and American has never been terribly thrilled with it. AA is selling off the fleet to FedEx, and rumors are that DL is about to do the same thing. So when *will* we see those big 777 orders? Jennings Heilig From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:05 Message-ID: >What are the chances that AA is going to go for the Airbus since they >were on the original "gang" that helped define (along with Delta, btw) >the 777? AA also issued the requirements specification that spawned both the DC-10 and the L-1011, and to a lesser degree the original A300, which probably came closest to meeting AA's spec. Obviously the only one of the three which they bought was the DC-10. (They launched the A300-600R, but that came much later and its a very different plane from the original A300 and from AA's pre-DC-10 specification.) I don't know, but it seems to me like AA's participation in the 777 definition process isn't likely to have a dramatic impact on their actually buying the 777. >I've been waiting with baited breath for the AA and/or DL announcement >of their respective 777 orders, and inthe case of AA, for it to be the >launch order for the 777-100. From what I hear (more and more) DL is >very unhappy with the MD-11, and American has never been terribly >thrilled with it. I hadn't heard that DL was unhappy with the MD-11. AA almost seemed to buy them because they got a deal -- someone else gave up some very early delivery positions and so AA got into the program late yet got some of the first deliveries. Why do you think AA might be a launch customer for the 777-100? They don't have any routes which need it -- their longest route is probably DFW-NRT and the B-market 777-200 has the range to fly that. Unless AA suddenly scores some major coups in the Pacific market, they really won't need the 777-100. Another issue with the 777-100 is the matter of who wants to be the pioneer operating ETOPS across the North Pacific. It can be done with 180-minute ETOPS, same as US mainland to Hawaii, but pilots who fly those routes have told me that the more northerly routes are a lot nastier, between arctic winds and storms and poor alternate airport choices in the Aleutians. Except for this fact, one of the more likely 777-100 targets would be UA. UA has always been very conser- vative, however, and I can't seem them leading the way on something like North Pacific ETOPS. Bob Crandall and AA seem more willing to push the envelope a bit in many regards (which is not to imply that AA compromises safety in any way) so AA might be the pioneer, though more likely with the 777-200(ER). AA has gotten somewhat cozy with Airbus, though, and Airbus would love to see the A340 beat the 777 at so prestigious a customer as AA. I'd not be willing to go out on a limb to pick the winner of this contest! It won't happen until AA resolves the pilot issues in any case, and while AA may not be happy with the MD-11, it'll do the job for now so they can AA can out-wait their pilots. DL is similarly in a cost-trimming mode, though they've also said they are looking seriously at replacing the L-1011. That could mean a 777 order, but unlike AA and UA, DL seems to like the 767 as a domestic aircraft and now operates a substantial fleet of 767-300s which are in a 2-class, domestic only configuration. The 767 is certainly cheaper and DL might choose to replace the L-1011 with smaller aircraft and more frequent flights. AA and UA have replaced a lot of DC-10 flights with 757s on more frequent schedules. For trans-Atlantic flights, DL just announced a 767 order to replace L-1011s, so their intent there is pretty clear. That leaves the Pacific routes, and again the ETOPS issue arises. If DL overcomes that stumbling block, the 777 could be a viable MD-11 replacement. On the other hand, with LAX-HKG gone, the 767-300(ER) also has the range to meet DL's needs. I suspect it doesn't have the capacity to be profitable on those routes, but I've never been quite able to understand some of DL's equipment choices. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Is there a group 7? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maine System Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:05 Message-ID: I think that group 6 airports must be capable of handling aircraft of wingspans up to 85m (there are probably other specifications). Has the specifications for group 7 aircraft been made? From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: rma@winternet.com (Rich Ahrens) Subject: Re: An Accelerometer in Paradise Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:05 Message-ID: fred (f.g.) black (black@bnr.ca) wrote: : The max loading for the entire plane may be 3g, but that doesn't apply to : something inside the plane, particularly if it can move around. I think : I read somewhere that the peak deccelleration of a metal box pushed off of : a table and landing on a concrete floor can exceed 100g! And I recall that a vendor (HP?) developed a 1 1/2" disk drive for palmtop computers that was designed to survive 300g when dropped from a similar height. The heads actually withdrew when the shock began. (It used a glass or ceramic platter rather than metal as well.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.winternet.com/~rma/ | |rma@winternet.com|--------------------------------------------------| | "Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the | | best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store | | or farm." - C. Wright Mills | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: Those backward-pointing rods on A320 wing things... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:05 Message-ID: In article , al683@freenet.carleton.ca says... >Extending behind the trailing edge of an A320's main wing, there >are two fair-sized "bulk-heads" (probably not what they're called). Probably they are static disipators. On aircraft equipped with Omega (navigation) receivers (and I believe the the 320 is), there is a great sensitivity to static buildup. The disipators keep the buildup to a reasonable level. If the devices in question are aproximately 15 cm long and have quite sharp "talons" (usually two, pointed up and down) then it is definitely a static disipator. Often they are made of yellow plastic with the metal conductor inside. They are riveted to a metalic surface at an extremity of the aircraft (wingtips, trailing edges are common locations) Alan Browne CMC, Montreal. From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Those backward-pointing rods on A320 wing things... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:06 Message-ID: In article , al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) wrote > Extending behind the trailing edge of an A320's main wing, there > are two fair-sized "bulk-heads" (probably not what they're called). > I believe they contain some linkages, fastenings or actuators for > the flaps, and or ailerons. Extending out of the point of each > one is a thin rod or tube. > > Are they: > a) static diffusers > b) some kind of sensors > c) fuel dumping nozzles (I doubt it, they're pretty thin) > d) hooks for ground crew to hang their headphones on > e) none of the above They may be there to disperse, if that's the right word, static electricity and thus reduce the chance of a lightning strike. However, the wires that do this on other planes are generally quite flexible, and droop a bit when the plane is on the ground. If what you are seeing are rigid rods, they may be part of the flap extension mechanism, although I don't know what their function would be. The "bulkheads" as you call them, streamline the flap extension mechanism. At Boeing, we call them "canoes." There is another poster to this group who apparently works on Airbus airplanes; perhaps he will give us the answer. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Those backward-pointing rods on A320 wing things... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:06 Message-ID: In article , al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) wrote: > >I'm not sure if I've seen this one answered before here, but >it's vitally important for a friend of mine to know: > > >Extending behind the trailing edge of an A320's main wing, there >are two fair-sized "bulk-heads" (probably not what they're called). >I believe they contain some linkages, fastenings or actuators for >the flaps, and or ailerons. Extending out of the point of each >one is a thin rod or tube. > >Are they: > a) static diffusers > b) some kind of sensors > c) fuel dumping nozzles (I doubt it, they're pretty thin) > d) hooks for ground crew to hang their headphones on > e) none of the above >? > None of the above... You are probably talking about the flap track fairings. These are fairings to cover the flap actuating mechanism from the elements and for aerodynamics. All airliners have them to some extent. Some are large and some are small. -- ----------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org AME (Canada), A&P, PPASEL HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg ----------------------------- If it is Blue, Frozen and falls through your roof, It is not a Meteorite. From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: donald.a@ix.netcom.com (Don) Subject: Re: Those backward-pointing rods on A320 wing things... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:06 Message-ID: al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) wrote: >I'm not sure if I've seen this one answered before here, but >it's vitally important for a friend of mine to know: >Extending behind the trailing edge of an A320's main wing, there >are two fair-sized "bulk-heads" (probably not what they're called). >I believe they contain some linkages, fastenings or actuators for >the flaps, and or ailerons. Extending out of the point of each >one is a thin rod or tube. >Are they: > a) static diffusers > b) some kind of sensors > c) fuel dumping nozzles (I doubt it, they're pretty thin) > d) hooks for ground crew to hang their headphones on > e) none of the above >? the "bumps" on the trailing edge of the wing are called " flap track fairings" and do in fact house the track that the flap rides on. The thin rods are static dischagers, I belive that they are made of carbon and are quite fragile. Hope this helps - Don mechanic for a major US airline," no job too big or too greasy". From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Those backward-pointing rods on A320 wing things... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:06 Message-ID: In article al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) writes: > Extending behind the trailing edge of an A320's main wing, there > are two fair-sized "bulk-heads" (probably not what they're called). > I believe they contain some linkages, fastenings or actuators for > the flaps, and or ailerons. Extending out of the point of each > one is a thin rod or tube. The "bulk-heads" are actually the flap actuator fairings, as you surmised. The thin rod hanging out the back is a static discharger, which diffuses excess static charge to the atmosphere. A bulkhead, by the way, is just a ship/aircraft term for "interior wall". 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 Sat Mar 30 16:01:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Boeing 777 interior views. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:06 Message-ID: I took a look at our (Boeing's) Web Site today (http://www.boeing.com), and I noticed the two virtual tours of the 777 are up and running. I had mentioned these were coming several weeks ago and then, of course, they didn't appear, prompting several justifiably irate e-mail queries. But they're there now, and in fact may have been for some time. Both "pictures" were taken on-board WA001, the first 777. One is of the cockpit (I must be honest and tell you that we added the clouds electronically) and the other is of the first class cabin. You will need Quick Time VR to view the shots. If you don't already have it, you can download if for free, and the Boeing site has a link to a download site. Something you might find of interest regarding the 777 interior: The center stow bins are unique in that they are a one-piece assembly from side-to-side, allowing each unit to be quickly removed so that the galleys and lavatories can be moved forward or back to reconfigure the seating arrangement of the plane. Each flex zone, as we call them, is twenty feet long. By moving the galleys, lavs, and closets forward or aft within their zones, airlines can increase the size of the business or first class sections, or add more coach seats, depending on the market demand of the routes being flown. A complete reconfiguration involving a galley, lavs, closets, stow bins, and seats, can be made within 72 hours. If this sounds like a long time, compare this to performing the same change on other airplanes (including our own) which generally takes at least a week and can actually require more than a month on some models because of the structural modifications that must be made to the floor and ceiling. I can testify to the fact that the 777's flex zones work because I recently produced a video demonstrating a galley move on WA001. In fact, they moved the galley you can see in the VR tour at the rear of the first class cabin. It took four mechanics a little over four hours to completely move the fore and aft halves of the galley forward, which also included moving the stow bins in front of the galley to a position immediately behind the galley. The entire job was performed using only basic hand tools, one torque wrench, and a ball point pen (to flip the clips that hold the overhead air grills in place). I was impressed. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PREST, University of Manchester Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:07 Message-ID: On 21 Mar 96 02:38:01 , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: >In article , Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk >(Alain Deckers) wrote: >> This thread has been dead for some time, but just as a matter of >> record, I understand that the A300 ST is only being produced in >> limited numbers (at least initially) for internal Airbus use. It is >> also called the "Super Flipper" and will replace the "Super Guppy" >> that are currently (or have until recently? >Just for the record, the new, outsized jet transport Airbus has built to >haul their wings and fuselage sections around is called the "Beluga" after >the whale of the same name. At least that's what some executives at >Airbus told me a year ago. It may be that since then, it's name has been >changed to "Super Flipper" to build on the "Super Guppy" theme. Martin may be right about this; I haven't checked for a while whether they have changed the name. However, Aerospatiale's in house magazine, in its June/July 1993 edition (n. 99), contains a fold-out structural diagram of the Airbus Super Transporter labelled "Super Flipper", and this is the source I was using for the name (it's blue-tacked to the inside of the door to my office; I can see it from where I'm sitting). The 1991-92 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft (p. 109), the last edition I have available in the office, doesn't give a name other than the Airbus "Super Airbus Transporter" (SAT). Cheers, A. -- Alain Deckers Tel: +44 (0)161 275 5943 PREST, The Universiy of Manchester Fax: +44 (0)161 273 1123 Manchester M13 9PL Email: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk United Kingdom From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: 757-300? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:07 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>I have seen several references to something called a 757-300 >>and/or 757-300X recently. Is this a "stretched" 757? Is there >>a commitment to build such a beast? > >The idea keeps coming up. About three years ago Boeing was talking >about a 23'4" stretch, which with a 30" pitch means about 9 more rows >or 54 more seats, ignoring added galley and/or lavatory needs, and >assuming only additional window exits. Look in the archives of this >group (at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html) for more >info on past versions. > >Recently, the idea seems to have come back more seriously, and Boeing >seems to be saying that it may be the next launch after the new 747 >(-500x and -600x) models. One driving force is that the 757-200 is Flight International has been reporting that the launch could come as early as this May. Apparently German charter operator Condor is quite keen. The aircraft they are talking about seems to be stretched but otherwise virtually unchanged from the 757-200, in order to keep costs down. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/mjj12 mjj12@amtp.cam.ac.uk "Much of what passes for quality on British television is no more than a reflection of the values of the narrow elite which controls it and which has always thought that its tastes are synonymous with quality" - Rupert Murdoch From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: khowie@accessone.com (Keith Howie) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AccessOne Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:07 Message-ID: Dale Tuttle wrote: >Ray Carini wrote: >> Boeing used it's own money to develop and build the >> Dash 80. Three weeks AFTER it's first flight, the >> Air Force ordered 29 tanker versions designated as >> the KC-135 >Yes, but the Air Force order "validated" the design for other >potential users What's your point? At the time Boeing committed its own funds, which at that time represented a significant portion of the company's net worth, to build the Dash 80, there was no assurance of any orders from the Air Force. This is not to say that Boeing didn't hope for some, or that the Air Force's needs weren't considered in the design, but there were certainly no guarantees. After the airplane flew, the Air Force apparently liked what it saw and decided to buy some. If this is what you mean by "validating the design for other potential users," so what? Does it take anything away from what was a great accomplishment? >as well as provided *lots* of cash for further development. Please tell us what you mean by this. The Air Force very likely did pay for development of some features that it alone would find useful. (There's not a very big commercial market for tanker planes that can refuel other aircraft while airborne.) >Boeing clearly did, and continues to, solicit support >from the government (rent-seeking behavior). Again, please elaborate on what you mean. Are you talking financial assistance or what? (What is "rent-seeking behavior," anyway? This must be some academic economist's jargon that got invented sometime after I took Econ 101 longer ago than I would like to admit.) Any large company, particularly one like Boeing, which does so much of its business internationally, will (quite properly) solicit support from its government for a variety of entirely legitimate reasons. Any government in the world will provide some reasonable level of support to its domestic industries in the conduct of their day-to-day business. >Its not that the government developed the dash 80, government >dollars clearly assisted its development and success. Once again, the government did not, repeat *not*, provide material assistance in the development of the Dash 80. Read any book on the history of commercial aviation if you don't believe me. If you want to argue that Boeing benefitted from the profits earned and experience gained in building B-47's and B-52's, or that the government, by buying KC-135's, helped Boeing to maintain overall profitability during some otherwise lean years, or that the KC-135 purchases provided Boeing with a larger production base than it would otherwise have had, I won't disagree. But what's wrong with any of this? >As per more recent government >intervention, the U.S. government played a crucial role in securing >orders for Boeing (and MDD) from Saudia Arabia and other Middle >Eastern states (what states and the exact orders I don't recall). I think there is a real question as to just how crucial the government's role really was in these sales. It was clearly in the Clinton administration's best interests to make itself appear as important as it could be made to look, and the press was very helpful in this effort. It also was very politically correct for the CEO's of Boeing and MDD to allow themselves to be photographed with Clinton when he announced the sales. And it's not as if all the European governments were asleep during all this. The real issue is: Would the sales have taken place the way they did without the government's involvement? I don't know the answer to this one. >Subsidies are often difficult to characterize. Few subsidies are >like what we see in the agricultural world (direct cash payments for >certain behavior). But, military orders, political influence, and >tax-breaks are all forms of subsidization. Boeing clearly does not >receive out-right cash to develop aircraft. But the government >helps sell its planes overseas (among other things)...which is a >subsidy. By your definition, any activity a government might engage in to assist a domestic industry could be called a subsidy. The term then becomes so broad as to be meaningless. You really do need to provide more factual evidence when you make the kinds of statements you made in this posting, rather than relying on innuendo and vague suggestions of improper practices or behavior. (For example, what did you have in mind when you used the parenthetical "among other things" in your last paragraph?) Keith From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PREST, University of Manchester Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:08 Message-ID: On 29 Feb 96 02:04:11 , rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: >In article , >Michael Carley wrote: >>bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) writes: >> >>>However, living in a country where opinions are biased the other >>>way, I've heard and read many times that the only difference >>>between government subsidies in Europe and the US is that >>>European ones are called subsidies ... >> >>>Any comment ? >> >>Think of it this way---would there have been a B707 >>without heavy subsidy from the USAF? Does anyone >>know roughly what the value of hidden subsidies to >>the US aero industry from military development >>contracts and NASA work is? Just wondering. >You'd still have to explain the DC-8 (very few bought by the US military), >and, for that matter, the Convair 880 and 990 (707-class jets produced >by Convair simultaneously). >And that's even assuming there _were hidden subsidies, which has yet to >be proven. >In fact the Convair 880/990 is an excellent example of the market at >work. They weren't competitive with the 707/DC-8, and so the company >exited the market. No subsidy from the US govt, just the old heave-ho. I missed the beginning of this thread, so please forgive me if I am going over old ground. I also realise that RNA may no longer be able to state his case in this forum, so what follows is intended as a general statement of my views rather than a rebuttal of his arguments. I'd just like to make two points: 1) The US government has been known to intervene when important defence contractors and/or aerospace firms experience financial difficulties. I have two cases in mind: the merger of Douglas and McDonnell (in 1967?), which was trigered by Douglas's difficulties and made possible by a federal loan guarantee, if I remember correctly; the US govt. also intervened to save/help Lockheed during the 1970s when it messed up its contract on the cargo aircraft it was producing for the USAF (again, with a federal loan guarantee? I don't have the details; perhaps some older s.a.a hands may be able to provide the info). 2) I think that to question the importance of defence contracts in allowing Boeing to establish its pre-eminence in the commercial jet-aircraft field is simply disingenuous. Let's look at some facts -- as provided by Herman O. Stekler in "The Structure and Performance of the Aerospace Industry" (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965). This is a bit long, but in my opinion it makes very interesting reading. ;) Ranked by sales (in millions of US dollars), the largest US airframe producers in 1949 were: Boeing (286.8), Consolidated Vultee (196.8), North American (124.7), Lockheed (117.7) and Douglass (117.0) (Stekler, p. 15). The pattern was, however, very different once one distinguishes between civil and military aircraft. During the early 1950s, Douglas continued to dominate the civil transport market, with over two-thirds of the aircraft in US scheduled domestic and international service. By 1955, this figure had declined somewhat, but still represented just under 60%. Over the same period, Boeing was only a small player in the commercial aircraft market with a small (5%) and _decreasing_ market share, as measured by number of aircraft in service. Boeing's pre-eminence in the sales ranking was due almost entirely to its role as contractor to the US Air Force, for which it was engaged in the development of several jet-powered heavy bombers. [I seem to remember reading that Boeing actually had an in-house jet-engine unit at the time (?)] This allowed Boeing to acquire a level of expertise in jet-powered large transports which was largely unavailable to other airframe manufacturers, and permitted it to exploit 'first-mover' advantages. How else do we explain the wholesale transformation of the industry rankings in the late 1950s and early 1960s? By 1961, Boeing's 707 and 720 models "accounted for 170 out of 302 jet-powered transports which were in operation by US-owned, scheduled, domestic and international airlines" (Stekler, p. 23). Of course other manufacturers followed suite (including Convair, Fairchild and Grumman, and we know how well they did). Douglas in particular had little option but to follow Boeing once the latter had decided to introduce jet-powered commercial aircraft _and_ it became clear that these would be economically competitive (Douglas did in fact wait for a while before commiting to jet aircraft, not entirely surprising given its position as the leading player in the pre-jet market. Would it have experienced the same doubts if it had had access to data from jet-powered large bombers?). Arguing about whether or not we call Boeing's defence contracts a "subsidy" is to engage in hair splitting. Competition is a dynamic process, and the fact is that Boeing's role as a defence contractor significantly affected the terms of competition in the commercial aircraft manufacturing industry during the 1950s. This is not to say that the same arguments apply _today_. I accept that defence contracts are not nearly as important to Boeing nowadays, and that they certainly don't explain Boeing's _current_ success at making and selling commercial aircraft. But this is now and that was then. Even so, there are still _some_ spill-overs from defence to civil aerospace technology today (e.g. in avionics and materials) and NASA also finances significant ammount of research in civil aeronautics. These factors may be more or less important to US coomercial aircraft manufacturers, but they cannot be dismissed out of hand. Sorry about the rant. Cheers, A. -- Alain Deckers Tel: +44 (0)161 275 5943 PREST, The Universiy of Manchester Fax: +44 (0)161 273 1123 Manchester M13 9PL Email: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk United Kingdom From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:08 Message-ID: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: > When the SCUD missile became a "star" in the Desert Storm war, why then did the > stock of the company that makes it go up on Wall Street ? Because investors > knew that a lot of SCUDS would be used in desert storm and that its high > visibility might result in sales to other countries, hence more profits to the > private company which result in higher dividends to the investors. In essence, > the US government spent tax money which ended up partly to Wall Street > investors. Hmm, I don't think that the Soviet-made Scuds made anyone's stock prices directly go up after the Gulf War, as they performed rather poorly. Perhaps you mean the Patriot missile made by Raytheon? I don't see what's so insidious about the above case. A company makes a product under contract from a military agency. The military user buys the product, and it performed (mostly) as intended, and happened to be very visible to the press. Why wouldn't people be interested in investing in the company which producted it, because of expectations that the good press would cause more sales? I don't know if this would be considered a subsidy. After all, if the product performed poorly, the company surely would have suffered a loss in its stock value. In my opinion, it's silly to talk about something being a subsidy when a company makes a good product, which leads to lots of sales. In this case, the US Army paid Raytheon to develop a new anti-air missile defense system - it was a need that the Army identified, and wouldn't have happened without them asking for someone to produce it. It's very rare that a company will embark on a new product development without either a specific request for a new product, or without a survey of the market to make sure that customers will exist for the product. My opinions only, 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 Sat Mar 30 16:01:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Karl E. Jones" Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Softaware Inc. and JetCafe Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:08 Message-ID: On 21 Mar 1996, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > When the SCUD missile became a "star" in the Desert Storm war, why then did the > stock of the company that makes it go up on Wall Street ? Because investors > knew that a lot of SCUDS would be used in desert storm and that its high > visibility might result in sales to other countries, hence more profits to the > private company which result in higher dividends to the investors. In essence, > the US government spent tax money which ended up partly to Wall Street > investors. [Majority mercifully snipped...] I won't ask whose side you're on, but the SCUD was not one of ours. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Karl E. Jones kjones@jovanet.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Subsidies ... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:08 Message-ID: In article , Russell K Ching wrote: >Andrew Sapuntzakis (andrewsa@comm.mot.com) wrote: >: In addition to 707 production depending on the KC135, one source >: (which I can dig up) I have read claims the DC-10 did not have enough >: (commercial) orders to justify production until the U.S. gov't >: stepped in with a request for the KC-10. > >I don't think so. The KC-10 went into operation in 1980, about 10 years >after the first production DC-10 went into service. Yes, the USAF is the >largest operator of DC-10s (at 60), but (no) they didn't save the project. >BTW, the DC-10 was selected from a pool of candidates which included the >747, 767 and (possibly to my recollection) the L1011. I'd be interested >to see your source, though. > They probably did have something to do with MD being able to launch the MD-11, however. KC-10 production allowed the DC-10 production line to stay open until the launch of the MD-11, something that likely would not have been possible otherwise. Of course, you can argue whether or not this was actually beneficial to MD. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/mjj12 mjj12@amtp.cam.ac.uk "Much of what passes for quality on British television is no more than a reflection of the values of the narrow elite which controls it and which has always thought that its tastes are synonymous with quality" - Rupert Murdoch From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: M.Misener@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Mark Misener) Subject: S80 Ground Checks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada. Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:09 Message-ID: Last week I was on an American Airlines S80 Chicago to San Diego (and return). I noticed that the ground crew were putting up ladders against the leading edge of the wing near the wing-root, and were running some kind of plastic brush, or something back and forth (from lead edge to trail edge). I couldn't see exactly what they were doing from where I was sitting, but, I've been on plenty of flights, and I don't recall seeing anyhting like it before. On top of that, I was talking to a friend of mine, and he said that he was also on an S80 recently, and observed the same thing. He also mentioned that he noticed a parked S80 with the skins removed at the wing-roots. Does anyone know what was going on? -- M.Misener@freenet.hamilton.on.ca From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@worf.netins.net (Sethu R Rathinam) Subject: Re: 757 flight recorder located Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4g2tn5$972@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU> Organization: INS Info Servcies, Des Moines, IA, USA Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:09 Message-ID: John Witherspoon (JW6191A@american.edu) wrote: : In article : bay@daacdev1.stx.com (John Bay) writes: [about flight recorders] : >To carry the thought a step further (and perhaps to extremes), does current : >technology make it feasible for airliners to transmit their operating : >parameters to the ground in real time? : Sure it would, just as 18 wheel trucks are often equipped with senders : that transmit the driver's speed, etc. back to the office via satellite. : The only problem would probably be that the pilots' unions would probably : howl. Both cockpit voice and data are collected during flights, and : I have read that some pilots are so concerned about somebody playing : back the last 30 minutes of their otherwise private flightdeck : conversations (i.e. when not talking to ATC) that they go to the : black (really orange) boxes in the back of the plane (where they're more : likely to survive a crach) and press the "purge" button, erasing the : tape so nobody can come aboard and listen to it. Don't ask me if it's : even possible to get at the audio without removing the box and taking it : to a lab... The trucks are equipped to send/receive a small amount of information to/from the dispatcher using Satellites (or other RF links). This information is usually GPS position, dispatch related and emergency information. The following is general FDR/CVR information and the detail will differ somewhat from airplane to airplane, so your milage may vary. You are talking about the Cockpit Voice Recorder in your next paragraph. The modern CVRs record about 30 min to 2 hours on Solid State memories (so the last 30 minutes-2 hours is always in memory when the airplane is out of the gate). There is no interface ON THE AIRPLANE to play back this data - the unit must be removed to the lab before this data can be extracted/played back. [There is a way to monitor the audio as it is being recorded (upstream from the recorder) for testing the unit, but it does not have the capability to play back.] It is standard procedure for pilots to erase this data after landing and the parking brake is applied. (The erase button is in the cockpit and is interlocked with the parking brake or engine-off logic). (Most people should have no problem with that procedure - there is some disagreement in case of Incidents but that is another topic.) (You can make your own calculation for real time transmitting of CVR data - telephone quality is about 8kBytes/sec uncompressed - as it happens, 4 channels are recorded....). The Flight Data Recorder records operating parameters - hundreds of them at various rates (typically 4 Hz to less than 1 Hz). All pitch, roll, yaw, accelerations, velocities, positions are recorded as well as primary control inputs and surface positions, (what the pilot "sees on the instruments"), along with several other pieces of information that would be of interest after an accident. A modern recorder can record (in solid state memory) typically 25 hours at 128 words per second (12 bit words). Most of the information is not of any use unless there has been an accident/incident. So about 1600 bps of information is produced and it is possible (purely technically speaking) to downlink this using ACARS. (But consider the hundreds of airplanes in the air at any given time and the bandwidth required simultaneously increases significantly (typically using VHF links - Satcom links are more expensive presently) and consider the very small accident rate and you'd realize why a VERY large percentage of this information is useless. Now, are we willing to finance this increased bandwidth and transmit capability for the very small amount of additional benefit (remember the CVR and FDR are recovered in most accidents - such as failure of critical systems). You can extract the data on the airplane by using the data downloading capability. Sometimes this data is recorded on an Optical Quick Access Recorder and the disk is changed, so there is more than one way of getting this data without removing the recorder. (Again, YMMV, depending on the type of airplane). Data transmission errors are another problem if you want to transmit this data using VHF/Satcom links and not retain it on board. Note this data is usually not stored in a buffer for any length of time to re-transmit in case of an error. (Usually on board recording is required to have an error rate is less than 1 bit in 100,000). ACARS is used primarily for producing reports on certain conditions (for example Engine Trend monitoring), arrival time information, maintenance required if any etc. - so these are primarily short messages sent in a burst of a few seconds and not sustained long messages like you will need for downlinking FDR/CVR information. (And of course the ACARS providers, ARINC/SITA charge the airlines for gathering this information from their far flung VHF receivers, processing them and sending it to the respective airline's computers.) Another related tidbit from FDR data protection requirements (remember it is just a protection requirement - nothing is REQUIRED to OPERATE after a crash) (Quoting from TSO-C51a) "Impact: The intelligence on the record medium shall be capable of being analyzed after the recorder has been subjected to the following shock: Types I and II - Half sine wave impact shocks applied to each of the three main orthogonal axes and having a peak acceleration magnitude of 1,000 g with a time duration of at least 5 milliseconds." Look up the above TSO, also, TSO-C124, and EUROCAE ED-55 (Minimum Operational Performance Specification for Flight Recorder Systems) if you want more information. -- ========================================================================= Sethu Rathinam rathinam@ia.net rathinam@netins.net From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Hughes Subject: Re: Vickers Viscounts in the US? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:09 Message-ID: > >> In article >> astracon@aol.com (Astracon) writes: > >> >Can anyone help me compile a list of Vickers Viscounts still in existence >> >in the US? > Several stored at Tuscon still last August: 4X-AVE, 4X-AVG, N24V, N140RA, N906RB, N145RA Nearby at Pima Museum is N22SN I can provide histories of these if you want them. -- Pete Hughes From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Direct Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:09 Message-ID: Are there any Airline types out there who's company utilizes Cruise Relief Pilots as flight deck augments on overseas flights. I am trying to compile some info as Canada is about to introduce legislation to allow a restricted type rating that would allow the introduction of this position into airlines in Canada. Currently both Captain and F/O require an endorsement in Canada. I understand that Carriers such as Quantas, Cathay and Eva use cruise relief non endorsed pilots who demonstrate emergency descent and a few other items but no T/O or landing. If you have data, or addresses for govt. publications which detail various countries regulations in this area, please drop me a line. Cheers, Peter From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: klaasjan@euronet.nl (K._Eits) Subject: Why was the Spruce Goose moved and where is it now ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Euronet Internet Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:10 Message-ID: Any suggestions ? Thanks very much for your attentention ! From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: FMS capability (and Enhanced GPWS) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4cro34$6cv@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4d9cvk$ntc@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:10 Message-ID: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) says: In ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: >In any case, the FMS does not have terrain data available to it, and >the current avionics industry development is leaning more toward >giving the GPWS a terrain data base, and to leave the FMS alone... Won't the Enhanced GPWS have the same constraints of proving the integrity of the database that the FMS would have? What about the integrity of the GPS sensor, or whatever is used to determine the plane's location within the database? GPWS has saved countless lives, but it has repeatedly proven itself as incapable of providing sufficient warning in many CFIT accidents. Therefore it is inadequate as a fallback system if the database based system should fail to warn. You can't just say, "If one system doesn't work, then MAYBE the other will." ==== I agree with your final statement there. However, the problems of integrating a terrain data base go way beyond the data base integrity issue. Because the FMS is essentially coupled with the autopilot and flight control systems, any changes to existing FMS software and hardware would require significant recertification efforts to ensure that there wouldn't be any undetected hardware/software failures which would inhibit any part of the FMS capability. (i.e. you wouldn't want a failure of the CFIT function to take out the autopilot.) While "new design" aircraft would be able to have the data base integrated with the FMS, the real challenge is retrofitting the vast number of aircraft already out there. After all, it will be a LONG time before B737-300s, B757s, and B767s (and similar MD and Airbus products) are retired from service. The addition of an integrated terrain data base on these aircraft would require a basic change to the architecture of FMS, as the FMS was NOT designed to have the CFIT function of these aircraft. Nor, to my knowlege, are aircraft designers leaning toward putting the CFIT avoidance function entirely on the FMS as a RETROFIT option. (I would be interested to find if anyone WAS considering this.) Despite the statements about the "inadequacies" of the GPWS, most of the holes in the protection envelope exist because the GPWS does not have knowledge of the terrain. The addition of the terrain data base would, in fact, not only "plug" these holes, but would provide a fully integrated CFIT avoidance architecture (as opposed to having separate CFIT avoidance functions split across several boxes). Pilots will tell you that having multiple alerting systems go off simultaneously is probably the easiest way to confuse the issue, and thus prevent immediate action. I disagree strongly with the claim that GPWS would be "inadequate as a fallback system if the database based system should fail to warn". One can come up with any number of scenarios which would cripple the CFIT avoidance function NO MATTER WHERE that function is implemented. After all, if the database is the source of the missed warning, then it won't matter where the data base resides. Similarly, if the problem is a faulty GPS sensor, it will affect the FMS just as easily as the GPWS. (In fact, if designed properly, the GPWS ought to have a similar position-source fallback scheme as the FMS.) The bottom line is that there are many ways to provide a similar level of safety. For new aircraft, where aircraft designers have the freedom to set up new avionics architectures, there are definitely many options open to choose from. However, for existing aircraft and avionics architectures, while designers have the same options, the realities of the certification process will inevitably make certain channels of upgrading capability much more attractive to the industry than other methods. Provided that they deliver the same level of safety, there shouldn't be any reason why one method should be favored over any other. Finally, despite all of the above comments, I am certainly not attempting to stop debate on this issue. I feel that your comments in general are very interesting discussion points, and value their contribution to the forum. I hope you find my comments likewise. :-) 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 Sat Mar 30 16:01:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ddomino@mitre.org (David A. Domino) Subject: Re: FMS capability (was: Re: AA965 proves Airbus bashers deadly wrong) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MITRE Corp. Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:10 Message-ID: In article , gorca!jnhall@uunet.uu.net (Joseph N. Hall) wrote: ----Snip---- > Also, there are the storage requirements ... let's say CONUS is roughly > 1500 x 3000 mi, sampled at 100ft intervals to a 16-bit accuracy ... > this means we need 4.5M x 52^2 x 16 bits = 22GB ... and how will all > that data be collected with verifiable accuracy? Why not just turn on > the radar altimeter and watch out for blinking red lights. Because the radar altimeter only reads what's below you and not what's ahead of you. In many terrain situations the rate of change of elevation, even if warning systems are working up to standard would be insufficient to prevent ground contact. A geographic database of _appropriately_ fine granularity would permit the design of a predictive system which could warn you in advance of ground contact. But your main point is that a comprehensive database might be prohibitively expensive, and in my view not particularly necessary to accomplish the task. For example there are pretty vast areas of the country where man-made obstacles would be the predominant risk, as opposed to terrain. In these areas the terrain data could be sampled at a much larger scale, and the obstructions database included with it. This would result in a much more manageable storage requirement, and still accoplish 99% (my WAG only) of the predictive terrain/obstacle avoidance task. Lastly, all of this technology is saving us from a fundamental communication failure, either between crewmembers in the airplane, between them and their automation, or between ATC and the airplane. When CFIT events happen, somebody didn't know something they should have, or could have known. A "relaxed" approach to the continuing question of "where am I, now" can't safely be tolerated, but the reliability of our modern systems may actually invite it. From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mitchell@mst.csiro.au (Clyde Mitchell) Subject: Question re Long-haul aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CSIRO Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:10 Message-ID: For the purposes of a story that I am writing, I need to have a group of people fly non-stop from Brazil to Bergen in Norway. The distance from Brasilia to Bergen is 9603 km (6002 mi), or about the same as London to Hong Kong. Clearly a 747 could do this, but I do not think it could land at Bergen (Flesland), which can handle 737's etc. I could reduce the distance to 8390 km (5244 mi) by flying out of Recife. I do not need a huge payload capability: I only need to transport 8 or 9 people with very little baggage or cargo. Cost is not a major consideration. Any suggestions as to the type of aircraft I could use? Thanks for any help, Clyde Mitchell mitchell@mst.csiro.au From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mvdb@pi.net (Marcel van den Berg) Subject: Southeast Asia trip report Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Planet Internet Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:10 Message-ID: Hi, In January I've been to Taipei, Hong Kong, Macau and Bangkok. A trip report describing spotters facilities at above airports like spots for photography, airlines, places to stay etc can be found on my Web site: 1st Spotters WWW page http://www.pi.net/~mvdb Regards, Marcel -------------------------------------------------------- --- Marcel van den Berg email: mvdb@pi.net Interested in aviation, check my homepage http://www.pi.net/~mvdb From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: L1011 Headroom Reasoning... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:11 Message-ID: Many L-1011's were fitted or refitted with center overhead bins, and the aircraft still retains a lot of headroom. Also, many of the originally much too small side overhead bins have been replaced with much larger ones, again not impacting the perception of openness in the L-1011 cabin. As to why that is the case, I have no idea. I just wanted to point out that it isn't the lack of a customer option (center overhead bins) that gives the interior of the aircraft the extra space (or perception thereof). My comments come from my experience flying Delta's domestic and international L-1011 fleet -- I have no idea what other airlines have done with their L-1011's, but short of lowering the ceilings :) I think that feeling of open space would remain. speedbird4@aol.com wrote: : : In Article, : > : > My question is: how was extra headroom justified? : > Would it reduce the L1011's cargo capability? : > Or -- possibly -- improve it? : > : My guess is that the greater headroom was made possible by the lack of center : overhead bins and comparatively small (against the 747/DC10) window overhead : bins. -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 770 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A. From kls Sat Mar 30 16:01:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Subsidies... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 96 16:01:11 Message-ID: Time to delurk... Subsidies to aerospace come in many sizes and colors. It is worth considering all the sources of government support before looking at who has recieved such. First, there are direct transfers of money from a government to a company to support development work. This can be done either as contract R&D, a grant or loans that are either nonrepayable or written off. Second, there are credits for R&D work, usually done as tax credits or money added to development or production contracts. Lastly, there is technology transfer, which is more subtle. Here, for example, government sponsored R&D work on a military program produces technology that is used on a commercial aircraft. In the case of the 707 vs. the DC-8, Boeing learned a tremendous amount about transonic, pressurized aircraft from the development of the B-47 and B-52, which was used in the development of the 367-80 (707 prototype). In many cases, the same people who designed the B-47 and B-52 worked on 367-80 (George Schairer, Bill Cook, etc.). Douglas only had knowledge derived from the A3D/B-66 to fall back on. Additionally, the A-3/B-66 was developed by the Santa Monica division, while the DC-8 was largely a Long Beach development (though the DC-8 does have DSMA airfoils, from Santa Monica). However, the government DID NOT pay for the development of 367-80 - this was done with Boeing money and was an incredible gamble. After it was ordered into production as the C-135, the production contracts probably did contain R&D funding. Douglas was worse off, as the DC-8 was only a commercial product. Note - it is very illegal to take R&D money from a military contract and apply it to a commercial project. Anybody doing business with the US DoD has DCAS auditors crawling all over them. We had one here this week reviewing our books and practices. In the case of the CV-880, CV-990, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, L-1011, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777, these were all developed with internal funding of the companies involved. There were no government grants, contracts, loans, etc. given directly for the development and construction of these aircraft. Military orders for the 707 (C-135, VC-137, C-18, E-3, E-8), 727 (C-20?), 737 (T-43), 747 (E-4, VC-25, etc.), DC-10 (KC-10) and 767 (E-767) came after a prototype had flown, and in most cases, long after production had started. Yes, KC-10 orders did keep the DC-10 line open until MD-11s started to be assembled and did take the DC-10 past break-even. However, the companies all took massive gambles with their own money first, and often lost. The CV-880, CV-990, DC-8, L-1011 production never reached break-even and did not produce a profit (the DC-8 came close though, if St. Louis hadn't shut down the line in 1972...). The US government assistance that Lockheed got in the early 1970s was ONLY loan guarentees - their credit rating slipped so low that the US government agreed to guarentee their loans. There were no direct cash transfers and the guarentees were never needed in maintaining loan payments. Rolls-Royce, on the other hand, was nationalized when they went bankrupt at this time. Now, Airbus was set up with loans from the French and German governments that were written off as they came due (Aviation Week and Space Technology had articles on the write-offs, as they happened). Additionally, launch costs of the A300, A310 and A320 were also financed by the same governments, plus Britain, in the case of the A320. Also, Aerospatiale, France's Airbus partner, is owned by the government. Hawker Siddley, after ammalgamation into British Aerospace, was government owned, but now is privately held. I think the German partner, MBB, now Daimler Benz Aerospace, has always been private sector. I am guessing that CASA, the Spanish partner, is government owned, but I could be wrong on this one. On the issue of government funding for technology development - yes, NASA does fund this and support this, but so does ONERA in France, DFVLR (now DLR) in Germany, RAE (now DRA) in Britain, NLR in the Netherlands, etc. Overall, this happens everywhere. ONERA, for example, exists largely to support Aerospatiale. Military production has helped support airliner development, as mentioned already. However, this is not just an American phenomona. The French and British threw incredible amounts of money at military aircraft programs in the late 1940s and 50s. The Germans did too, but because of postwar limitations, didn't get started until later. In fact, a lot of this money came from the US, via NATO. The USAF owns quite a few Dassault Mysteres, for example, because they actually paid for them (this is how several have ended up in museums in the UK)! My conclusion? Airliner manufacturing is a prestigous, crown jewel that many countries desire to have. However, the cost of entry is enormous. The US, buoyed by WW2 manufacturing expansion, was strong enough to enter in the 1950s, funded by company internal money. However, the Europeans, were not in as strong a position, and also were strongly influenced by socialist philosphies of government control of major industries. Because of this, the Europeans have developed a tradition of government funding for their companies. However, this will come to roost eventually, when the governments find that they have less and less to sink into an enterprise that is still not producing healthy returns. Throwing money at industries just to produce jobs is a loosing propositon, in the long run. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sun Mar 31 17:24:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 31 Mar 96 17:24:08 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small >hatch above the cockpit. (I assume the same is true for the -400F >which does not have the long upper deck.) > Isn't the upper-deck door on the starboard side on the -100, -200, and -400F a service door? -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Sun Mar 31 17:24:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 31 Mar 96 17:24:09 Message-ID: >>The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small >>hatch above the cockpit. (I assume the same is true for the -400F >>which does not have the long upper deck.) >Isn't the upper-deck door on the starboard side on the -100, -200, and >-400F a service door? I had forgotten about that door. On UA 747s (the only ones I've been on), I think it's inside the cockpit area, adjacent to the FE panel. I've never seen it used on a UA plane, though UA has the optional dumbwaiters or elevators for the upstairs galleys and thus wouldn't need to use them for galley servicing. Perhaps other airlines whose 747s don't have that option use the door for servicing, though it's smaller than the regular doors. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Mar 31 17:24:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: md-11ER Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 31 Mar 96 17:24:09 Message-ID: In article , Bong wrote: >I red an article in the news today and I stumbled an article that says >that airbus lunched a short A330 which will compete direcly to the 767 >and the md-11. In my own opinion, the airbus was wrong at that one. > With the launch of the A330-200, the shortened A330, it is clear that airlines certainly like the twin-engine airplanes. Before the launch, Airbus already had the A340-200 to cover this market sector---the A340-200 which has four engines and an extra 800 nm range above A330-200 (i.e., 6400 nm for the A330-200 vs. 7200 nm for the A340-200). IMHO, the A330-200 may generate some sizable orders that the A330 program badly needs. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Sun Mar 31 17:24:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 31 Mar 96 17:24:09 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >Why do you think AA might be a launch customer for the 777-100? They >don't have any routes which need it -- their longest route is probably >DFW-NRT and the B-market 777-200 has the range to fly that. Unless AA >suddenly scores some major coups in the Pacific market, they really >won't need the 777-100. The problem with the B777-200 is that it may be too big for most of AA's and DL's general operating patterns. TWA's recent order of the B757 was intended to partially replace some of its L-1011s. DL also hinted that they might order the B757 to replace the L-1011. Although, Asian airlines have been order larger planes to replace their older fleet, the same trend does not seem to apply for the US carriers. Thus, IMHO, if AA is going to order the B777, the majority of the order will be for the -100, provided Boeing is able to come up with a good solution for the weight problem of the shortened B777. For this reason (weight penalty), I think Airbus does have an upper hand for the AA order, especially with the launch of the A330-200. Airbus is also studying a light-weight A330-200 which would be ideal for AA to replace the DC-10 and the A300 on the domestic operation. > >Another issue with the 777-100 is the matter of who wants to be the >pioneer operating ETOPS across the North Pacific. Asiana has been flying the B767-300ER between Seoul and Seattle for almost a year. Asiana and EVA have also been operating to Honolulu with the B767 from their respective homebase in Seoul and Taipei. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Sun Mar 31 17:24:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 31 Mar 96 17:24:10 Message-ID: >Thus, IMHO, if AA is going to order the B777, the majority of the >order will be for the -100, provided Boeing is able to come up with >a good solution for the weight problem ... But the 777-100 won't have that many more seats than the 767-300 (but substantially more cargo lift), and will be very close to the A300-600, both of which AA already has. The only reason for buying the 777-100 is tremendous range, and right now AA doesn't have any need for that kind of range. If they buy the 777 at all, I don't see why they would pick the -100 -- and you make a convincing case for the bigger 777s being too big for AA's operations, so it seems unlikely that we'll see any AA 777s. >>Another issue with the 777-100 is the matter of who wants to be the >>pioneer operating ETOPS across the North Pacific. >Asiana has been flying the B767-300ER between Seoul and Seattle for >almost a year. I knew Asiana had the 767-300(ER) and wondered where they used them, but I didn't know they were using them across the Pacific. >Asiana and EVA have also been operating to Honolulu with the B767 >from their respective homebase in Seoul and Taipei. Same for Qantas and Air New Zealand. However, except for a possible small detour on a SYD-HNL route, all of those flights can be carried out with 120-minute ETOPS, same as the North Atlantic. I think both Qantas and Air New Zealand also fly HNL-LAX in the 767, or did, and that does require 180-minute ETOPS, but again, a number of pilots have told me that's a piece of cake compared to the more northerly latitudes of the Pacific which one would cross on a flight such as SEL-SEA. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Mar 31 17:24:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 31 Mar 96 17:24:10 Message-ID: In article , Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk wrote: > Aerospatiale's in house magazine, > in its June/July 1993 edition (n. 99), contains a fold-out structural > diagram of the Airbus Super Transporter labelled "Super Flipper", and > this is the source I was using for the name (it's blue-tacked to the > inside of the door to my office; I can see it from where I'm sitting). > The 1991-92 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft (p. 109), the > last edition I have available in the office, doesn't give a name other > than the Airbus "Super Airbus Transporter" (SAT). According the the "unofficial" Airbus Web page which is actually maintained by someone else but is quite good, the name of Airbus' new transporter is "Beluga." C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sun Mar 31 17:24:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Why was the Spruce Goose moved and where is it now ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 31 Mar 96 17:24:10 Message-ID: In article , klaasjan@euronet.nl (K._Eits) wrote: > Any suggestions ? > Thanks very much for your attentention ! The Spruce Goose is in pieces in storage in Oregon. The museum that bought it hopes to build a proper display facility and re-assemble the airplane, but they are having trouble raising money, among other things. The airplane was moved from its excellent facility in Long Beach when Disney bought the land and the Queen Mary because they had no interest in something that didn't do anything. I remember reading in the news articles at the time that Disney said they are only interested in "interactive" things like rides, shows, theme parks, etc. Their feeling was that the Spruce Goose just sat there to be looked at, so they wanted it gone. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sun Mar 31 17:24:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jtomasin@csulb.edu (Jeffrey Tomasin) Subject: Re: Why was the Spruce Goose moved and where is it now ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Cal State Long Beach Date: 31 Mar 96 17:24:10 Message-ID: K._Eits (klaasjan@euronet.nl) wrote: : Any suggestions ? : Thanks very much for your attentention The Spruce Goose was housed in domed building next to the Queen Mary in Long Beach, CA. The city attempted to make the aircraft and the ship into a tourist attraction, but financially the site did not make a profit. Long Beach, like most other municipal governments in California, was having difficulty paying for basic services. Therefore, subsidizing the Goose and the Queen was not possible. About 3 years ago, the aircraft was disassembled for a move to McMinnville, Oregon. There was a short article about the Spruce Goose in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, March 29,1996. The person that purchased the Spruce Goose has been having financial problems. The air history museum planned for McMinnville that would contain the Spruce Goose has not been built due to funding problems. The picture in the LA Times showed the nose of the Spruce Goose by itself, with the remainder of the aircraft described as still unassembled. Jeff Tomasin From kls Sun Mar 31 17:24:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cc230@torfree.net (Derek Grace) Subject: Re: Weight of cabin air at altitude Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Toronto Free-Net Date: 31 Mar 96 17:24:10 Message-ID: Rickydick (rickydik@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : There is also a ton of sheet lead in the sidewalls of DC-10's, : and at least the classic 747's. There is no better noise insulator. Where is this "sheet lead" located ?. I haven't seen it on any of the B747's that I work on. I am intrigued. Regards -- Derek Grace Toronto, Ontario, Canada cc230@freenet.toronto.on.ca From news Sun Mar 24 01:20:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.mech.fluids Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!hodes.com!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: Gary Walsh Subject: Re: **Questions** on Ground Effect Vehicles Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom18.netcom.com Organization: Hitachi Data Systems Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 02:47:43 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu royalty@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Chuck Royalty) wrote: > >In article , Lih-Yenn Ong wrote: >> >>I am trying to read up on Ground Effect Vehicles and would appreciate >>it if someone can point to the relevant journals, papers, books or WWW > >I remember reading (maybe within the last year?) an article about >?Russian? development of very large ground effect vehicles for >transoceanic cargo. Looked a lot like huge airliners, but travelled >in ground effect at speeds slower than jet transports and much faster >than ships. If no one else has a reference easily at hand, I'll try >to dig it up. A smaller Russian vehicle even made it into the UK national newspapers. It could carry around a dozen passengers plus cargo at a cruising speed of around 80 knots (according to the article!). It looked like a small passenger aircraft with pontoons (sorry if the terminology is a little off). The difference was that the props could be rotated between horizontal and vertical, and there was a large aerofoil between the pontoons (although you couldn't see it in the accompanying photograph). I think the idea was that the props could be oriented to enhance the ground effect at low speeds. The article appeared a couple of weeks ago. -- _____________________________________________________________________ Gary Walsh E-mail: Gary_Walsh@spire.hds.co.uk Open Systems Product Specialist Phone: +44 1753 618806 Hitachi Data Systems Fax: +44 1753 618576 Sefton Park Stoke Poges Disclaimer: My views, not HDS' Buckinghamshire SL2 4HD England _____________________________________________________________________ From news Sun Mar 24 01:20:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!hodes.com!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: Judah Milgram Subject: seek info re MIL-STD 1374 Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom18.netcom.com Organization: U. of MD Rotorcraft Center Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 02:47:54 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Might someone be able to provide bibliography citation info for MIL-STD-1374? All I know about this document is that it provides a standardized method for tabulating aircraft weight data. gratefully, Judah Milgram milgram@eng.umd.edu From news Sun Mar 24 12:12:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.techniques.testing.misc,alt.sci.physics.acoustics,sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news1.digital.com!decwrl!amd!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: r.r.antcliff@larc.nasa.gov (Rich Antcliff) Subject: Aerospace Sciences Meeting Call Online Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom19.netcom.com Organization: NASA LaRC Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 16:48:30 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu 35th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit http://mstb.larc.nasa.gov/ASM/ASM.html <---------------- January 6-9, 1997 Reno Hilton Reno, NV Abstract Deadline: May 17 , 1996 The Aerospace Sciences Meeting is the largest of the AIAA technical conferences and one of the preeminent technical gatherings within the entire spectrum of aerospace activities. The multidisciplinary character of this meeting provides an ideal forum for scientists and engineers from industry, government, and academia to share and disseminate scientific knowledge and research results. The 35h AIAA Aerospace Meeting and Exhibit will again place emphasis on fundamental science issues. Participation by the basic research community is especially encouraged. The meeting will feature both invited and contributed presentations that address the future scientific and technical challenges facing the aerospace community. Technical papers are presented by authors chosen via a competitive selection process based on peer review, as described below, and invitation of papers of the highest quality to emphasize major trends and accomplishments in various aerospace disciplines. To facilitate simultaneous sessions, papers will begin on the hour and half hour. Six to eight 30-minute papers per session are planned (20 minutes for presentation with 10 minutes for question and discussion). The technical committees sponsoring this meeting, areas in which papers are solicited, and the names and addresses of the meeting organizers to whom abstracts should be sent are listed in the Call for Papers. Every effort will be made to provide uniformly rigorous evaluations and acceptance rates for all sessions. Please review the Rules for Abstract/Manuscript Submission if you are interested in submitting a paper. We also allow electronic submission of abstracts for many TCs. General inquiries concerning the program, format, or policies of the meeting and suggestions for special high-interest information presentations should be directed to the Conference General Chair: Dr. Richard R. Antcliff NASA Langley Research Center MS 493 Hampton, VA 23681 804/864-4606 * 804/864-8315 fax email: r.r.antcliff@larc.nasa.gov