From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Julian Throp Subject: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: . Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:37 Message-ID: Have there been any accidents or incidents directly relating to etops, and have their been any etops incidents with the B777 or A 330? How safe are ETOPS and are pilots aware of the risks in day to day operations. Are ETOPS flights as safe as 3 and 4 engined aircraft, except the obvious that they have less engines and hence less chance of a failure! Many thanks if you can help me. Julian Throp (jthrop@earthlight.co.nz) From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:37 Message-ID: >Are ETOPS flights as safe as 3 and 4 engined aircraft, except the obvious >that they have less engines and hence less chance of a failure! If the probability of an engine failure is the same, then yes, with more engines you have a higher probability of having an engine fail within a given amount of time. But those assumptions aren't true. Often, twins have higher thrust versions of the same engine (the PW4000 used on the 747-400 has 56,000 lbs of thrust, the 767-300's version is 60,000 lbs, and the 777's is 77,000 lbs and up). They don't just run the engine harder, of course, but core temperatures and stresses are probably higher at full rated thrust. Lufthansa used this argument to justify the A340 over the A330, even where ETOPS wasn't a significant concern. On the other hand, if everything is working, a twin's engines don't have to work as hard on takeoff. Since an airliner must be able to complete a takeoff and climb on n-1 engines once it has attained V1 speed, a twin can achieve (approximately) the same performance with both engines running at only 50%. A four-engined aircraft must run its engines at 75% of rated thrust to match its engine-out performance. One might also argue that the added scrutiny and maintenance care that an ETOPS-rated aircraft receives makes it *safer* than a 3- or 4-engined airliners that just gets the normal maintenance. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Craig Earon Subject: Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance and Inspection Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:38 Message-ID: The 11th FAA/AAM Meeting on Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance and Inspection Theme: Human Error in Maintenance Wednesday & Thursday March 12-13, 1997 Holiday Inn on the Bay - San Diego, CA ----------------------------------------------------- On-line pre-registration and detailed information is available at: http://galaxyatl.com/meet11.html ----------------------------------------------------- Galaxy Scientific Corporation 2310 Parklake Drive Suite 325 Atlanta, Georgia 30345 USA (770) 491-1100 USA From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: Delta Ratio Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:38 Message-ID: In article , ehahn@mallard.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: >I think GWilson is trying to say that the Delta ratio is the ratio of >ambient pressure at a particular altitude to sea level pressure, >independent of vehicle speed. Thus, Delta can be tabulated on >standard atmosphere tables. Jet engine performance is a function of >Delta. My answer to the original question seems to have generated a lot of further debate. As Robert Dorsett correctly pointed out delta and EPR are quite different things and in fact delta like theta and sigma is merely a normalising coefficient which allows you to correct back to sea level conditions. If anyone is still following the argument ,however, it may just be worth pointing out that theta for jet engines nearly always relates to total temperature at engine face i.e. always includes the kinetic temperature rise. Sigma on the other hand always relates to static density conditions as total density is a meaningless concept. Delta, however, can be used for either static (ambient) pressure or total pressure (i.e. including the kinetic pressure rise). thus at Mach 1 20000ft static delta is around 0.5 and total delta is around 0.95. If it isn't clear from the context, you therefore need to ask which type of delta is meant : however the total type of delta is often denoted by a subscript T.....but you still need to be careful about the intake pressure recovery assumed (or not)! Bottom line is that Ed Hahn's comment is correct in respect of a delta used to correct field performance data (as per the original question), but in general delta does not necessarily ignore the speed term. All clear now???? Well I guess those who actually need to use it knew anyway. Now it really does get interesting when you have to consider real gas effects in hypersonic flows (air breathing spaceplanes).......... Gerald Wilson From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tregear Subject: RE: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Camtech (SA) Pty Ltd Dialup Customer Reply-To: ltregear@camtech.net.au Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:38 Message-ID: I've heard the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine, that automatically ejects into the airstream upon engine failure. My question is where is this Ram Air Turbine positioned and how big and how much power does it provide? Thanks Brendan Tregear From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Messina Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:39 Message-ID: On 25 Sep 1996, Jos Gielen wrote: > >On 13 Sep 1996, MikeM727 wrote: > >> behind a 737. From behind, they seem to be bent while taxiing! What I > >> mean is, while the nose wheel is on the centerline and tracking straight, > >> the main wheels are not equidistant from the centerline. It looks like > >> the thing is crabbing. What's the deal with that? Anybody? Jim Messina wrote: >>Easy one. They are taxiing out with only one engine running to save fuel. >>It does put side loads of the nosehweel with the engine out on the wing >>but seems to be standard practice when the aircraft is light and delays at >>the runway are expected(you're number 5 for takeoff). > >>When the aircraft is heavy, single engine taxi out is difficult and >>possibly hazardous to ground personell or structures because of the large >>breakaway thrust needed. On 25 Sep 1996, Jos Gielen wrote: > ALL 737's do it, also the ones I know off that don't taxi single > engine. On a a twin engine jet that is stupid by the way, unless your > pretty light and looking at long delays on the taxitrack, and don't > have to move too much. That's what I said but is hardly stupid to many operators who use this method quite routinely. It is one reason why a 737 looks crooked while taxiing. > As for the "crooked" taxiing, the rudder of the 737 is oversized, and > makes it hard to taxi in a crosswind. That could be one reason. I must > say however that I've also seen them do it on a windless day. The > nosewheel is not off-centerline btw. There is, in the knee-joint on both main landing gears, a dowel that has some lateral freedom of movement. The main wheels do shift a few degrees either side of center. I wouldn't call it a "cross wind landing gear", because no one I know allows the airplane to land in a crab to take advantage of this small freedom of movement. From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:39 Message-ID: MikeM727 wrote: > > In article , ddand@aol.com (DDAnd) > writes: > > > Is the crabbing always in the same direction? > > I discussed this with my Captain and we both thought it might be always > the same direction. But we couldn't agree which direction, so...actually > we're not sure. We'll have to check again next time we're behind one. I would suggest you also see if you can tell if the 737 is taxiing on a single engine, and if so which one. The nose gear should appear "closer" to the non-op engine if you are directly behind the 737's line of travel (can't use the phrase 'directly behind the 737,' can I?). Seems to me (without putting pen to paper...therein lies the grain of salt :-) that the combination of shimmy-dampers on the MLG and single engine taxii would easily result in a more noticeable crab angle than you would observe on an aircraft without shimmy dampers on the MLG. In the latter case, any crab angle would be due only to a slight induced "scrubbing" of the nose gear during single-engine taxi, rather than a slight rotation of the main gear. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsjames@ix.netcom.com (Gary S. James ) Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:40 Message-ID: In mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) writes: > >In article , ddand@aol.com (DDAnd) >writes: > >> Is the crabbing always in the same direction? > >I discussed this with my Captain and we both thought it might be always >the same direction. But we couldn't agree which direction, so...actually >we're not sure. We'll have to check again next time we're behind one. I've been looking at them more closely lately and they are not always in the same direction nor are they weathercocking into the prevailing wind. If there are any 737 CA's/FO's out there, how about looking in the manual and see if the gear has a swiveling capability? -- 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 From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Air Canada DC-9s questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:40 Message-ID: On a recent DC-9 flight on Air Canada (LGA-YUL), I noticed the year "1967" on a plaque on the left side of the entry door frame. (My first flight in a DC-9 in years) I would be interested in knowing when the DC-9s were first introduced, and when they were at their apex of sales, and when did sales of new DC-9s stop ? Was the DC-9 immediatly replaced by the MD80 or was there a few years in between ? Are there still a lot or DC9s that were built prior to 1970 in service in North America, or was the one I flew a true/rare "vintage" one ? Also, I noticed a hole in the leading edge of the tail, just above the fuselage. Is this an air intake for the apu ? Also, the rubber gasket on the front door seemed quite different from other more modern planes. Is this the actual air tight barrier when door is closed, of does this very visible rubber gasket serve a protective or other function ? Finally, through an opening between the wall and overhead bins, I noticed a copper pipe (looked like copper) running along the wall with some hookups for every row. The pipe was about 1cm in diameter. Had it not been for the Valuejet crash where those oxygen generators were described, I would have thought that this pipe would have been the oxygen supply. I seems too small for the air supply for the over head air nozzles. What would this pipe be used for ? Is it possible that on some models of DC9s, the oxygen was centrally supplied through such a pipe as opposed to having individual generators over every row ? From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:41 Message-ID: Actually, I think the 737 meets or exceeds all the current regulatory requirements. There was a lot of early scuffling over exactly what would bring added safety, but with a few zillion hours of inservice experience, the 737 folks can show what failures they are subject to and what they aren't, so they could point out that in a couple of cases, what the FAA asked for would not actually increase safety because there had never been a failure in that area (jammed flight controls on one side jumps to mind). Given the fact that there are more 737s flying than any other type of heavy jet transport in the world, and the fact that it is a short-haul airplane flown by every concievable kind of airline in every part of the world, if it hasn't happened to them by now, it probably isn't going to happen. Terry, A difference that comes to mind is that the old 737's at least, only had to allow 1 second for reaction time for an aborted takeoff as a derivative, wheras the A320 as a new airplane had to allow two. I had seen it claimed in FI that the extra second one way or the other made the difference between which airplane could carry more payload at some fields. Do the new 737's have to allow one second or two? -- Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "McElravy" Subject: A330/A340 wing design (was: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?)) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:41 Message-ID: > Is this the root of the deficiencies in the A340's wing design you > claim, since the A340 wing is a compromise between a twin and four- > engine design? (The twin-engined A330 uses the same wing.) I've never read or heard a satisfactory description of how Airbus managed this feat. Even though it is the same basic wing design, there has got to be SOME differences. I remember when I first heard that they used the same wing, I was very impressed for the first five seconds I thought about it, and then began to wonder about efficiency and performance factors. So, how does it work? Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:41 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>Given the relatively poor results of the A340 wing design (reduced >>LRC, flutter, etc) I don't think anyone would really want to >>reproduce that particular wing on a larger aircraft. >... >>There are huge differences between twin and four engine aircraft >>wings, generated primarily by flutter response. > >Is this the root of the deficiencies in the A340's wing design you >claim, since the A340 wing is a compromise between a twin and four- >engine design? (The twin-engined A330 uses the same wing.) Sort of. (Don't you just love definitive answers?) Mostly I attribute Airbus' problems with the A340 wing to their lack of experience designing and building heavy four-engined transports. It isn't easy, and there are a lot of non-obvious traps. Boeing has a tremendous amount of experience designing four engine heavy jet transports, and it shows. If it didn't, we'd all have a lot more to worry about. -- 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 Tue Oct 1 23:56:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:42 Message-ID: C. Marin Faure wrote: > It depends on your definition of new. From an aerodyamic standpoint, all > the fuselage does is keep the wind out of your face. So if you take a > fuselage that happens to already be perfect for its purpose, add a brand > new wing using the best aerodynamic knowledge in existance today, put on > state-of-the-art, high-bypass fanjets, and add the most advanced and > reliable airplane systems in the world, it sounds like a new airplane to > me. It may LOOK like a 747, and that's what we're going to call it, but > as far as its performance and capabilities go, it's a new airplane. So, if this is to be a "new" plane in terms of development costs, in what way does Boeing have an advantage over Airbus ? There have been many posts stating that Boeing's "derivatives" would cost "nothing" compared to Airbus' new A3XX. But if both planes are "new" for the major systems point of view, is Airbus really that far behind because it doesn't have a "747" type plane ? From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:42 Message-ID: In article , drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > >The 777 has one of the most advanced wings around, and Boeing has already > >stated that the 747 derivatives, if they are built, will use a similar > >wing. However, it would have to be larger and stronger than the wing on > >the 777 because the new airplane itself will be larger and heavier. But > >the aerodynamic and manufacturing advances that are incorporated in the > >777's wing would be used for the 747 derivative wing. In that much of the > >airfoil and control surface research and development has already been done > >for the 777, you are correct in stating that the expertise gained from the > >777 program will help hold the costs down on a 747 derivative. > > The airfoil technology is a good starting place, but airfoil development > rarely stands still. The CFD techniques alluded to above are being used > by Boeing, and every other jet transport manufacturer, to hold down costs. > However, the controls requirements and layout would differ significantly > between the 777 and any 4-engined airplane, rendering much of the 777 data > irrelevant. Suffice to say that the wing is the heart of the airplane's > performance, and each wing design is lovingly tweaked right up to drawing > release, and beyond in some cases. I have no dispute with your statement. All I can do is paraphrase what I've heard the design engineers in Everett say about the new 747s (assuming they are built), and that is that it will have a "777-type" wing. What that means is open to speculation, of course, but the basic airfoil and aerodynamic characteristics are supposed to be very similar. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:43 Message-ID: > Here is my $0.02 worth on this topic. Remember the 767-X. It was never a > 767-X. It was 777 to start with. Boeing marketing geniuses did not want > any of their competitors to think that the company was coming up with a > totally new very large twin engined aircraft that could dominate the > segment left open between the 767and the 747. Boeing 747-500/600/(700, > 800, whatever) are in my judgement the same ploy. That is giving too much credit to us. When I was at Douglas Aircraft, we were aware of the revolution that Boeing was attempting, so if Boeing was trying to fool the world it failed. Boeing is generally pretty straight-forward about the aircraft designations, although perhaps not always true to the engineering reality. Marketing probably uses the designation that is most logical to the customer and the passengers. The new 747s will look like the current 747 and better not to add confusion by calling it something else, even though the new plans will be nothing like the current 747. Of course, the -400 was not all that much like the earlier versions. I'm not sure what the original layout was for the 767-X, but I doubt that it looked like the current 777. More likely, of several designs for a new airplane, at least one included a 767 derivation and another included what came to be the 777. That is what has (so far) happened with the 747-500, etc. Plans for a new airplane included the planned -500, etc. derivations of the 747 and a totally new design called the 787 (actually, I think we had a couple configurations of the 787, including a triple deck config). It was eventually decided that the "new" design, 787, would have to stay on hold and that the new 747 versions were a go. - David Lawler Boeing Defense & Space (formerly Boeing Commercial Flight Test) From kls Tue Oct 1 23:56:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com Subject: Jet engine rpm Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:43 Message-ID: A recent Flight International magazine has an article and cutaway on the RR Trent engine. Maximum Shaft rotation speeds were given as 3,500 rpm for the Fan (LP Turbine), 7,700 rpm for the IP stage and 10,000 rpm for the HP stage. For the Fan the rpm results in the blade tips being supersonic - or near it. I was under the (miss)impression that jet engine shaft rpm were very much higher than this - like 70,000 rpm plus. Maybe I'm thinking of smaller older engines. I know that some of the model aircraft jet engines (based on turbochargers) have shaft speeds of around 90,000rpm. These engines are only a few inches across though. Can anyone comment on this with say rpm of the Conway, Viper, Olympus etc engines. Thanks for answers. From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Back on the Named Engines thread... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:05 Message-ID: Looking through some reference material on the Avro Vulcan bomber recently, I stumbled across something that I already knew, but didn't think about during the recent "engine names" thread. Perhaps someone at Rolls-Royce can tell us why RR only named one engine after a mountain? As far as I'm aware, the Olympus was the only engine RR named thus. Otherwise we'd have the Rolls-Royce Everest, K-2 (?), Erebus (not a bad name...), Kilimanjaro, Fuji (maybe not), etc. Perhaps it's because England doesn't have any memorable mountain names? Just curious... Jennings Heilig From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: thomas smith Subject: Re: inoperative Fire Detection Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Altopia Corp. - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net Reply-To: trsmith@prado.com Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:05 Message-ID: Kamal Hisham wrote: > I am a pilot on the B747-400, and I am interested in opinions on the = > unavailibity of the fire detection system on one engine. Supposing a = > flight departs with Fire Detector Loop A on engine # 1 inoperative, and, = > inflight, Loop B on the same engine fails. Now, a situation exists = > where there is a total unavailibilty of fire detection on eng # 1. = > Should the flight continue to destination, or should it be landed at the = > nearest suitable airport? Shut down the engine or let it be ? > What else can be done to take care of the situation? This really seems like a Question for the Flight Standards Captain of your airline, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't already be addressed in the flight manual for the airplane, or for the airline ..?? On a somewhat related note...I went through some training a while back on the DC-10 fire suppression system. The instructor noted that the APU and #2 Engine share the same two fire bottles, and the instructor noted the following: IF the APU should suffer an inflight fire ( I guess DC-10 can use the APU aloft ) and BOTH bottles must be used to suppress it ( disch the first and wait...if necess disch the 2nd ) ... THEN...#2 Engine is required to be shut down because there is NO fire suppression left for it should it suffer a fire. Anyway, my backgroud is maintenace, and this was a maintenance course..but the intructor was a former pilot. -thomas- From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tukano Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:05 Message-ID: Tregear wrote: > I've heard the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine, that automatically ejects > into the airstream upon engine failure. > > My question is where is this Ram Air Turbine positioned and how big and > how much power does it provide? That's right, the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine (RAT), which is deployed either automatically or on command of a Cockpit crew member, in case of a total electric failure or total engine failure. It is able to provide enough power to supplement the blue hydraulic system. The automatic pitch control of the propellers provide a constant engine speed in the propeller hub to the generator. After deployment of the RAT, it can only be "geared up" on the ground. It is positionned in the fuselage in the left wingbox. So long, Tukano. -- mailto:immoeadj@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chrisddr@aol.com (chrisddr) Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Net Direct, Inc. (317) 251-5252 Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:05 Message-ID: In article , ltregear@camtech.net.au wrote: >I've heard the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine, that automatically ejects >into the airstream upon engine failure. >My question is where is this Ram Air Turbine positioned and how big and >how much power does it provide? It is positioned just forward of the Left MLG. It is about 30 inches in diameter and provides hydraulic pressure in a hydraulic failure not engine failure. I could give you the real details out of the MM if you want them. From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Mike Pisenti" Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:06 Message-ID: Tregear wrote in article ... > I've heard the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine, that automatically ejects > into the airstream upon engine failure. > > My question is where is this Ram Air Turbine positioned and how big and > how much power does it provide? According to the A320 Systems Briefing for Pilots, an emergency generator is hydraulically driven by the Ram Air Turbine, nominal power 5 kVA. It also will provide hydraulic pressure to one of the three hydraulic systems. Don't know how big the unit is, never seen one. If I recall correctly, it is positioned slightly to the right of centerline aft of the main gear, with the door outlined with red dashed lines about 3 ft by 6 ft. Mike Pisenti Dispatcher From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:06 Message-ID: In article , ltregear@camtech.net.au wrote: > I've heard the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine, that automatically ejects > into the airstream upon engine failure. > > My question is where is this Ram Air Turbine positioned and how big and > how much power does it provide? All ETOPS airplanes and some others have RATs. They are not turbines in the sense you may be thinking. A RAT is a small propeller mounted on a retractable arm that pivots out of a well in the belly of the plane. Depending on the airplane, the propeller drives a hydraulic pump or a generator. If there is a failure of the airplane's hydraulic system on a fly-by-cable airplane or the electrical system on a fly-by-wire plane, the RAT will automatically deploy into the airstream and provide sufficient hydraulic or electrical power to operate the flight controls. The pilots also can deploy the RAT themselves if they want to. It's the same concept as the little propeller-driven generator mounted on the landing gear of small planes without battery systems like the Piper Cub to power a radio in flight or running lights. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:06 Message-ID: >All ETOPS airplanes and some others have RATs. In the "some others" category, the A340 is one example. I assume the rationalle is to power the FBW system in the event of fuel starvation (a la the Gimli Glider) or some other cause of a total engine failure. While it probably was easy to include (carried over from the A330), it adds weight. I'm not sure I agree with the "all ETOPS ... have RATs" comment, however. I thought there only needed to be some additional source of power that could be started in-flight. Boeing elected to implement this using a RAT on the 757 and 767 (probably the 777, too, though I don't know for sure), but on the A300 and A310, Airbus did it be certifying the APU for in-flight start, at altitude and after a long cold soak. I thought that having that capability obviated the need for a RAT on those aircraft, though the next message says that the A300 does indeed have a RAT. Can anyone here clarify what exactly the requirement is? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Keith R. Thompson" Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:06 Message-ID: Tregear wrote in article ... > I've heard the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine, that automatically ejects > into the airstream upon engine failure. > > My question is where is this Ram Air Turbine positioned and how big and > how much power does it provide? I'm not sure about the A320, but on the A300 the RAT was located in the right wing root and was deployed by pulling a handle located on either side of the cockpit outboard of the Captain's and FO's seats. In a total electrical failure scenario, the procedure at my airline was for both pilots to pull their respective RAT handles in case the linkage from either one failed. -- Keith R. Thompson keithrt@earthlink.net Denver, CO From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:06 Message-ID: I'm not sure were the RAT is on a A320, but some 767s and 777s have them and they are positioned on the left hand side of the fuselage, just aft of the main landing gear. If I remember correctly, the RAT provides (hopefully) just enough pressure to the controls to allow for a controlled descent. - David Lawler Boeing Defense and Space formerly Boeing Commercial Flight Test From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dweeks@primenet.com (David Weeks) Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:07 Message-ID: In article , ltregear@camtech.net.au wrote: >I've heard the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine, that automatically ejects >into the airstream upon engine failure. > >My question is where is this Ram Air Turbine positioned and how big and >how much power does it provide? Not quite right. The RAT is deployed (by a large spring) if BOTH AC busses lose power inflight. It is located in the center section, just aft of where the leading edge of the left wing meets the fuselage. I can't remember the exact amount of power it provides, but it will power the essential busses for as long as you care to fly. The RAT comes off line when the gear comes down, as it will not run properly below 140 KTS. So, when you drop the gear for landing, you are back on battery power. The little prop that runs the rat turns a hydraulic motor that runs a small generator for AC power. You can also use it to power the Blue hydraulic system, if the blue pump fails. David Weeks AWA A320 captain From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: DC-9/MD-80 Type Certificate Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:07 Message-ID: Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: > I'm pretty sure that all the MD-80/90 aircraft have the same type > certificate as the DC-9. Could you double check your references? Nope, Karl is correct. McDD got a new type certificate for the MD-88, and I believe that somehow they got it to cover the MD-80/81/ 82/83/87 as well. I know for sure that there were at one time two different type certificates in force, one for DC-9s up thru (at least) the MD-83 (DC-9-83) and one for the MD-88. If you look at the airworthiness certificate on the front bulkhead sometime you'll see what it's listed as... All of DL's are listed as TYPE: MD-88 Cheers, Jennings From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-9/MD-80 Type Certificate Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:07 Message-ID: Jennings Heilig wrote: >Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that all the MD-80/90 aircraft have the same type >> certificate as the DC-9. Could you double check your references? > Nope, Karl is correct. McDD got a new type certificate for the >MD-88, and I believe that somehow they got it to cover the MD-80/81/ >82/83/87 as well ... >... If you look at the >airworthiness certificate on the front bulkhead sometime you'll see >what it's listed as... All of DL's are listed as TYPE: MD-88 While the FAA was once very retentive about type designations (see past discussions about why the L-1011-385-1-14 has such a cumbersome moniker), I thought they eased up and let MD use MD-88 as the official designation, without forcing a new TC just for a name change. The MD-90, as I heard it, was the first of the DC-9 series to have a completely new type certificate. I looked thru http://www.faa.gov but couldn't find anything relevant, unfortunately. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Air Canada DC-9s questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:07 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > On a recent DC-9 flight on Air Canada (LGA-YUL), I noticed the year > "1967" on a plaque on the left side of the entry door frame. (My first > flight in a DC-9 in years) > > I would be interested in knowing when the DC-9s were first introduced, > and when they were at their apex of sales, and when did sales of new > DC-9s stop ? Was the DC-9 immediatly replaced by the MD80 or was there a > few years in between ? > You were mostly likely on a DC-9 Series 30. First delivery of this model was to Eastern Air Lines on January 27, 1967. So yes, you were flying on a rather elderly airliner. The MD80 was first the DC-9 Super 80, so the DC-9 became the MD80 instead of being replaced by it. One day it was the Super 80, the next it was the MD80 (no, I don't know the exact date that it changed, though it was in 1983). If you consider MD80s to be late model DC-9s, sales apexed in the 1980s - far more -80s have been delivered than all other DC-9s added together. > Are there still a lot or DC9s that were built prior to 1970 in service > in North America, or was the one I flew a true/rare "vintage" one ? There are still a lot of the older DC-9s flying. Northwest is actually buying old DC-9s to build up its fleet. With the availability of the ABS Stage 3 hush kit, you will see DC-9s in service for a long time to come. I'll leave the rest of your questions to be answered by the more operational types here. However, one thing you seem to be confused about - DC-9 oxygen masks are fed from a tank, while MD80 oxygen masks are fed from generators. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Oct 8 13:00:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:07 Message-ID: Julian Throp (jthrop@earthlight.co.nz) wrote: : Have there been any accidents or incidents directly relating to etops, : and have their been any etops incidents with the B777 or A 330? : How safe are ETOPS and are pilots aware of the risks in day to day : operations. : Are ETOPS flights as safe as 3 and 4 engined aircraft, except the obvious : that they have less engines and hence less chance of a failure! When I was riding in the ex-Braniff 747 that Tower took me to Brazil in in 1986, the woman in the seat next to me was having obvious signs of distress during our takeoff at JFK. After some straight climbing flight she groaned "He isn't going to turn again, is he?" I asked if she disliked flying. She said no, she loved flying, she did a lot of it in California in her own light single. She didn't like these big ones with all these engines. The more engines, the more chance for something to go wrong. Happily nothing did. -- Gerry From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:07 Message-ID: In article , Julian Throp wrote: > How safe are ETOPS and are pilots aware of the risks in day to day > operations. There aren't any risks, any more than there are on any flight in a modern commercial jetliner. Engines are so reliable these days that they can almost be ruled out as a source of problems. Most in-flight problems that occur today are in an airplane's systems, from navigation equipment to electrical or hydraulic systems, to the lavatory system (yes, plugged toilets can cause a flight to divert to the nearest airport). And since twin-engine ETOPS planes use the same types of systems used in three and four-engine airplanes, the chances of an inflight problem are the same for all of them. Actually, there are less risks in an ETOPS airplane because not only does the plane have additional backup capabilities in the critical systems, but the operator has to prove a very high level of competence in maintenance and operations. Just buying an ETOPS airplane does not qualify an airline to fly ETOPS routes. The airline has to receive an ETOPS rating, too,in effect. People still tend to focus on engines as the most critical element of ETOPS when in fact they are not. Systems are much more important to the success of ETOPS. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:08 Message-ID: > Are ETOPS flights as safe as 3 and 4 engined aircraft, except the obvious > that they have less engines and hence less chance of a failure! One of Boeing's reasons for developing the 777 for ETOPS was that additional engines do not add a significant margin of safety for the simple reason that the more engines, the more maintenance that is required to keep them in peak operating condition. Boeing has argued that the evidence shows the more engines and aircraft has, the more likely there will be a problem with one or more of the engines, and that consequently 3+ engine airplanes are no more safe in that respect than 2 engine airplanes. Of course, there is disagreement in the aviation industry as to whether the evidence truly shows that to be the case. Boeing made the case well enough that we received FAA approval for delivered ETOPS capability. - David Lawler Boeing Defense and Space formerly Experimental Flight Test, 777 (WA003) From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D Snow Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:08 Message-ID: On 25 Sep 1996, Adam Dobrzycki wrote: Air Mauritius wins the award though for the longest ETOPS segment, 175 minutes from the equal time point, on their segment from mauritius to perth. There is an enroute alternate, the Turks and caicos Islands (I think), which results in an 886NM 2 hour radius of action, but when the WX is good then MK can plan 3 HRs, which I think was 1330NM I have one of the flight plans for this segment from their Chief Pilot for B767-300s from back in 1992. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Out of Terre Haute, and lovin it! From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alan Wong Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Australian National University Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:08 Message-ID: I wrote: >>This opens up an interesting topic. What are the major routes (either >>currently possible or likely to be possible in the not too distant future) >>that cannot be flown with 180 minute ETOPS? The ones that come to my mind >>are flights over southern hemisphere oceans ie flights linking Australia, >>Africa and South America. Tahiti to Los Angeles seems to be one and possibly >>Europe to southern South America. In contrast, I believe that all intra >>northern hemisphere routes can be done by 180 minute ETOPS. Any comments and >>corrections? kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >My great circle mapper (http://www.chicago.com/airliners/gc.html) can >now plot ETOPS go/no-go areas, though the data is not complete so >there may be a few holes that are in fact flyable. >Some northern hemisphere routes aren't flyable, even with a 180 minute >rule-time, if you stick with the shortest route. Um ... try MIA-BKK. >(Perhaps not a highly probably route, but it illustrates the point.) >It goes right over the pole, and up there, you're not near any sort of >alternate. Large expanses of northern Asia are also off-limits. Having had a look at the ETOPS no-go areas, I can now answer my own questions. The north pole and far northern Asia are off-limits. Current routes that go or have great circle routes near the north pole include Europe to Japan/Korea and Hong Kong to Chicago/Toronto. Routes between major centres that go near the north pole are likely to be very long and deviations to the south will not be a large penalty. In the case of Hong Kong to Chicago/Toronto, China is also off limits, thus making the actual route further to the south (in addition to the more southerly route to take advantage of the jetstream on the eastbound sector). >Another factor in the northern hemisphere is mountains. As a Qantas >pilot recently reminded me, lack of airports isn't the only reason for >no-go areas. The Himilayas pose a problem for a twin with one engine >out. They're also a problem for *any* airliner that loses cabin >pressure since descending to an altitude with breathable air would >require you fly underground. Mmmm. This will also depend on how the aircraft is configured. For instance, Qantas 767s were (probably still) not allowed to fly to Europe from Asia over Afghanistan because their emergency oxygen packs were too small. If the plane lost cabin pressure over Afghanistan, there wasn't enough oxygen to last till the plane cleared the mountains. (Source: Australian Aviation) Other 767s such as Lauda and Lufthansa/Condor had no such problems. I do not think there are many other areas besides the Himalayas that poses major problems. There are certainly high mountains elsewhere, but they tend to be a narrow band (eg Alps, Andes) allowing stricken aircraft to quickly evade them. The Rockies, on the other hand, are fairly broad, but many aircraft do cross it. >Now think about Delhi to Northern Europe (LHR, FRA, CDG, for example). >I heard that Afghanistan may become off-limits for US carriers, which >requires only a modest diversion to the north, but that takes you into >the mountains. Diverting to the south is longer, but it takes you >over Iranian airspace, which surely is off-limits for many carriers. As I mentioned before, China is also virtually off-limits except for a few corridors. >Australia to Africa is mostly ok -- only the southerly points get bit >by a lack of suitable island alternates in the southern Indian Ocean. Unfortunately, the only sectors currently flown are Johannesburg to Perth and Melbourne, both of which are heavily penalised under 180 min ETOPS. Similarly for other southern hemisphere trans-continental routes such as Auckland to Buenos Aires and Johannesburg/Cape Town to Rio/Sao Paulo/Buenos Aires. This will have implications for airlines such as Qantas, Air New Zealand and South African Airways when purchasing aircraft eg A340 vs 777X. Alan. From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:08 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |> > My wife and my sister-in-law have both flown this JFK-JNB segment |> >in both directions (not together) and I believe it stopped in the |> >Azores to refuel every time. Sample size is at least six flights, |> >three in each direction, various times of the year. |> |> Are you sure it was the Azores and not Cape Verde? The Azores are |> pretty far north of the shortest path, while the Cape Verde Islands |> are right on the money. (When United planned to fly IAD-JNB, they |> were going to stop at Cape Verde -- both ways.) The SAA stop is at Isle do Sal in the Cape Verdes--a small island that looks big enough to fit a runway and little else. Nice, one-story terminal that looks like an excellent set for filming some Idi Amin hostage movie. Lots of guards with AK-47's. But, a real men's room! (Couldn't tell anything about the Duty Free shop as it was closed when we landed). -- David Medin Phone: (319) 295-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: speedbird4@aol.com Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:09 Message-ID: In Article, write: > SLC-IPC and IPC-PPT (Santiago - Easter Island and Easter Island - > Papeete, for code illiterates) Umm...perhaps I'm illiterate but isn't SLC "Salt Lake City" and SCL "Santiago, Chile"? From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:09 Message-ID: >> SLC-IPC and IPC-PPT (Santiago - Easter Island and Easter Island - >> Papeete, for code illiterates) >Umm...perhaps I'm illiterate but isn't SLC "Salt Lake City" and SCL >"Santiago, Chile"? That was a double mistake -- the original typo, then when I caught it and asked for permission to change it before approving the post but then forgot to actually do it. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:09 Message-ID: Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : > My wife and my sister-in-law have both flown this JFK-JNB segment : >in both directions (not together) and I believe it stopped in the : >Azores to refuel every time. Sample size is at least six flights, : >three in each direction, various times of the year. : Are you sure it was the Azores and not Cape Verde? The Azores are : pretty far north of the shortest path, while the Cape Verde Islands : are right on the money. (When United planned to fly IAD-JNB, they : were going to stop at Cape Verde -- both ways.) My wife doesn't remember and my sister-in-law is not conveniently available to ask a question. You're probably right--the Azores are way out of the way, and the Canaries aren't much better. If I can get a solid answer I'll post it. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:09 Message-ID: Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : Europe to South America is not a problem. In fact, most of Europe to : the eastern part of South America (including Rio and Buenos Aires) can : be done with 120 minute ETOPS with little or no penalty. There's a : hole in the Atlantic that poses a problem for routes like LHR-CCS : (Carracas, Venezuela) but it all but disappears with a 180 minute : rule-time. I believe the CAB (the UK equivalent of the FAA) introduced a new category, the 132min ETOPS, to close that Atlantic gap. Seems all those charter airlines with large RR powered 757 fleets wanted a straight path to Florida. -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:09 Message-ID: >: Europe to South America is not a problem. In fact, most of Europe to >: the eastern part of South America (including Rio and Buenos Aires) can >: be done with 120 minute ETOPS with little or no penalty. There's a >: hole in the Atlantic that poses a problem for routes like LHR-CCS >: (Carracas, Venezuela) but it all but disappears with a 180 minute >: rule-time. > >I believe the CAB (the UK equivalent of the FAA) introduced a new >category, the 132min ETOPS, to close that Atlantic gap. Seems all those >charter airlines with large RR powered 757 fleets wanted a straight path >to Florida. You're thinking of a 138 minute rule-time (a 15% increase over 120 minutes). However, it was created to close a small "no-go" area much further north, between paths which use Iceland and the Canary Islands as their alternate. The hole mentioned above is much larger and is south and west of the Canary Islands. Check it out using my GC map at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/gc.html, which also has some info on the 138 minute rule-time. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:09 Message-ID: In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > It depends on your definition of new. From an aerodyamic standpoint, all > > the fuselage does is keep the wind out of your face. So if you take a > > fuselage that happens to already be perfect for its purpose, add a brand > > new wing using the best aerodynamic knowledge in existance today, put on > > state-of-the-art, high-bypass fanjets, and add the most advanced and > > reliable airplane systems in the world, it sounds like a new airplane to > > me. It may LOOK like a 747, and that's what we're going to call it, but > > as far as its performance and capabilities go, it's a new airplane. > > > So, if this is to be a "new" plane in terms of development costs, in > what way does Boeing have an advantage over Airbus ? Well, the fuselage design is already done and paid for in large part, in terms of the cross-section, configuration, interior, and structural layout, thanks to the previous members of the 747 family. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the largest expenses in creating a new airplane is designing and manufacturing the tooling needed to build it. Even though much of the new 747s will be just that...new... we will be able to use a lot of the existing 747 tooling, saving a lot of money in the process, cost savings that will be reflected in the purchase price of the airplane. And the same things that help reduce development costs also accelerate the development and delivery times, another benefit to the operators. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:10 Message-ID: On 1 Oct 1996, 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist wrote: > Actually, I think the 737 meets or exceeds all the current regulatory > requirements. > Terry, > A difference that comes to mind is that the old 737's at least, only > had to allow 1 second for reaction time for an aborted takeoff as a > derivative, wheras the A320 as a new airplane had to allow two. I do suspect that there could be any number of significant "grandfathered" 737 systems that would not meet current certification criteria. In one of the _AW&ST_ articles discussing the NTSB's ongoing investigation of 737 uncommanded rudder inputs (United and USAir, among others), it was reported that the rudder PCU (power control unit, I believe it is) could not be certified under today's regulations. Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@best.com (Peter Coe) Subject: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BEST Internet Communications Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:10 Message-ID: I was catching up on my backlog of magazines at the weekend, and in one of them was a short news piece about a 747 that was getting wheeled out of BA's Cardiff maintenance facility, when someone inadvertently retracted the undercarriage. The result was $1million repair charge. I am rather amazed that this is possible, given that there are all sorts of interlocks between the undercarriage and other aircraft systems. Does anyone know more about this incident in particular, and this kind of scenario in general. From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "R.Schmidt" Subject: flight AA155 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:10 Message-ID: On December 16th, 1972(!) I was on flight AA155 (JFK-IAD). Unfortunately, it was in that period that I was not yet interested in civil aviation. Anyway, is it possible to find out the registation of the aircraft of that very flight? From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: imacduff@aol.com (IMacduff) Subject: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: imacduff@aol.com (IMacduff) Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:10 Message-ID: I would like to hear others views on where advances in aeronautics will take us and how far away is the end. I find it curious that the basic design of airliners hasn't changed that much ( nothing revolutionary anyway) since the 707. How efficient can you make jet engines? Do higher speeds (supersonic) come free or will they always require compromise (ie fuel efficiency, safety, approach speeds)? Are there any revolutionary aerodynamic designs still untried in the wind tunnels or computer simulations? I believe that fifty years from now we will be flying airliners very similar to todays, with only minor enhancements. They will still be almost entirely subsonic and have very similar overall performance. I am criticized for this by day-dreamers who believe Mr. Ingenuity always has another trick up his sleeve, and hypersonic travel will be commonplace in the future. However, airliners of today are a mature technology, with most major advances to take place on the flightdeck and not in the actual airframe. Even technology on the flightdeck will mature and stabalize soon. After all, once you can pinpoint your position in real time anywhere in the world to within a few feet and carry a topographic map of the entire world on CD ROM (not far away), where do you go from there? Ian imacduff@aol.com From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: b17864@vaxc.phx1.aro.allied.com Subject: Re: Jet engine rpm Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AlliedSignal Engines, Phoenix, Az Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:10 Message-ID: In article , julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com writes: > A recent Flight International magazine has an article and cutaway > on the RR Trent engine. Maximum Shaft rotation speeds were given > as 3,500 rpm for the Fan (LP Turbine), 7,700 rpm for the IP stage > and 10,000 rpm for the HP stage. For the Fan the rpm results in the > blade tips being supersonic - or near it. > > I was under the (miss)impression that jet engine shaft rpm were > very much higher than this - like 70,000 rpm plus. Maybe I'm thinking > of smaller older engines. I know that some of the model aircraft jet > engines (based on turbochargers) have shaft speeds of around 90,000rpm. > These engines are only a few inches across though. > > Can anyone comment on this with say rpm of the Conway, Viper, Olympus > etc engines. Thanks for answers. > To really oversimplify things, the tip speeds of the turbomachinery is usually kept constant. For a smaller engine, a higher RPM is necessary to achieve these speeds. I don't have any exact numbers handy but for large engines, core speeds on the order of 9,000 to 10,000 rpm are typical. For smaller biz-jet and turboprop engines core speeds run in the 25,000 to 30,000 rpm range. Commercial APU's may run in the 50,000 rpm range. An extreme case is an engine being developed by former employee under a govt contract that is 1" to 2" in diameter and will spin at 200K rpm using dental drill technology! Hope this helps. Mark Johnston Sr Developement Specialist AlliedSignal Engine Phx AZ From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Jet engine rpm Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:10 Message-ID: In article , julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com wrote: > A recent Flight International magazine has an article and cutaway > on the RR Trent engine. Maximum Shaft rotation speeds were given > as 3,500 rpm for the Fan (LP Turbine), 7,700 rpm for the IP stage > and 10,000 rpm for the HP stage. For the Fan the rpm results in the > blade tips being supersonic - or near it. > > I was under the (miss)impression that jet engine shaft rpm were > very much higher than this - like 70,000 rpm plus. Maybe I'm thinking > of smaller older engines. I know that some of the model aircraft jet > engines (based on turbochargers) have shaft speeds of around 90,000rpm. > These engines are only a few inches across though. > > Can anyone comment on this with say rpm of the Conway, Viper, Olympus > etc engines. No, but the PT6A as used in turboprops like the de Havilland Twin Otter, Pilatus Porter, etc. spins up around 30,000 rpm I believe. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Oct 8 13:00:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tukano Subject: ATR 72 EMR evacuation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Date: 08 Oct 96 13:00:11 Message-ID: Hi, Imagine an ATR 72 to be evacuated urgently on the ground: We suppose an a (right) engine Fire, so that everybody is rushing to the back of the a/c. Will the craft's rear fall on the ground (tailscrape) due to the mass of people (including Cockpit crew) rushing to the back? In normal OPS there is the necessity to fix a stick under the fuselage below the rear doors to avoid the described effect when boarding/ disembarking the a/c. In case of this, you may forgot the left rear exit (main door) because it is a "stairdoor", so that you will have to walk up before leaving it. Additionally, there is stairbanister on the left side, so to run away from the a/c may be really difficult! Is it common to certify such risks, and does other a/c offer similar limited escapes in case of an Emergency evacuation ? I appreciate your comment, Tukano. -- mailto:immoeadj@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:25 Message-ID: In article , dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) wrote: > I'm not sure were the RAT is on a A320, but some 767s and 777s have them > and they are positioned on the left hand side of the fuselage, just aft of > the main landing gear. > > If I remember correctly, the RAT provides (hopefully) just enough pressure > to the controls to allow for a controlled descent. I believe all 757s, 767s, and 777s have RATs. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wen@infi.net (W.E. Nichols) Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: wen@infi.net Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:25 Message-ID: chrisddr@aol.com (chrisddr) wrote: +In article , +ltregear@camtech.net.au wrote: + +>I've heard the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine, that automatically ejects +>into the airstream upon engine failure. + +>My question is where is this Ram Air Turbine positioned and how big and +>how much power does it provide? + +It is positioned just forward of the Left MLG. +It is about 30 inches in diameter and provides hydraulic pressure in a +hydraulic failure not engine failure. +I could give you the real details out of the MM if you want them. This is quite interesting. I was in a rather heated discussion in another ng over the RATs. It started with me questioning the use of a hydrazine (very nasty stuff) powered APU in the F-16. This ac also has a UPS (Uninterruptable Power Source) which is used prior to starting the APU in the event of engine failure. Which I understand, powers up much faster than a regular APU. The main argument for having a hydrazine APU was due to the unreliable power provided by a RAT. That is a RAT does not provide good 400HZ power for the ac systems. I sounds to me like someone may have been spouting the gummint line on the reliability of RATs and the power they produce. Anyone have any comments. Nick W.E. Nichols If a frog has wings, it wouldn't bump it's wen@infi.net it's ass everytime it jumped. From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: donald.a@ix.netcom (Don ) Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:25 Message-ID: On 01 Oct 96 23:56:38 , Tregear pounded on the keys to say: >I've heard the A320 has a Ram Air Turbine, that automatically ejects >into the airstream upon engine failure. > >My question is where is this Ram Air Turbine positioned and how big and >how much power does it provide? The A-320, B-757, DC-10 and some other aircraft have RAT's. In their basic form a RAT is a small propeller (approx 3'to 4' diameter) that will deploy when a particular set of flight parameters are met ( in-flight, engines not working, etc.) . When deployed the air rushing past the RAT will cause it to turn and power a generator or a hydraulic pump. RAT's are normally located in the bottom of the aircraft near the centerline and produce (hopefully) just enough power to keep control of the aircraft. Hope this answers your question -Don From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: vugrad@aol.com (Vugrad) Subject: New Book on Boeing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: vugrad@aol.com (Vugrad) Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:25 Message-ID: I have written a new book titled FLYING HIGH: THE STORY OF BOEING AND THE RISE OF THE JETLINER INDUSTRY, published and distributed nationally by Atlantic Monthly Press. It is described on the web at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rodgersmail From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gabes@fau.campus.mci.net (Gabe Sanders) Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:26 Message-ID: petercoe@best.com (Peter Coe) wrote: >I was catching up on my backlog of magazines at the weekend, and in >one of them was a short news piece about a 747 that was getting wheeled >out of BA's Cardiff maintenance facility, when someone inadvertently >retracted the undercarriage. The result was $1million repair charge. > >I am rather amazed that this is possible, given that there are all sorts >of interlocks between the undercarriage and other aircraft systems. Most airlines have a ground sensor which will prevent the landing gear handle from physically being moved from the down position. It can be overridden on most planes though. You can also pull the ground sensor circuit breaker which will also override this. The next point, is most airplanes have an over center lock on at least the main gear. This makes it very difficult for the gear to retract on the ground. Many planes can have the nose gear retract. (Actually, the nose of the plane will lower ) Gabe Sanders gabes@gate.net 75750.2132@compuserve.com From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concord World Travel Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:26 Message-ID: On 08 Oct 96 13:00:10 , petercoe@best.com (Peter Coe) wrote: >I was catching up on my backlog of magazines at the weekend, and in >one of them was a short news piece about a 747 that was getting wheeled >out of BA's Cardiff maintenance facility, when someone inadvertently >retracted the undercarriage. The result was $1million repair charge. It was a 747 operated by Orly-based CORSAIR (SS). What made the whole incident worse was the fact that it took place right in front of assembled SS executives. My recollection is that it took several hours before BA was able to raise the aircraft off the ground and I believe that the cost was more than $1,000,000 to fix. -- Roger Chung-Wee Concord World Travel, 278 Wightman Road, London N8 0LX Tel: +44(0)181-342 8400 Fax: +44(0)181-348 0822 From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:26 Message-ID: > I was catching up on my backlog of magazines at the weekend, and in > one of them was a short news piece about a 747 that was getting wheeled > out of BA's Cardiff maintenance facility, when someone inadvertently > retracted the undercarriage. The result was $1million repair charge. There must have been a physical problem since most smallish general aviation aircraft have systems to prevent just this sort of thing from happening, and the landing gear on a 747 hold up a lot more weight. That there would be no countermeasures in place to begin with seems almost negligent. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Kearney Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ireland On-Line Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:26 Message-ID: On 8 Oct 1996, Peter Coe wrote: > one of them was a short news piece about a 747 that was getting wheeled > out of BA's Cardiff maintenance facility, when someone inadvertently > retracted the undercarriage. The result was $1million repair charge. > > Does anyone know more about this kind of scenario in general. > Not a very nice thing to happen to anyone. Theres a nose-wheel-strut locking pin that SHOULD be in place when the aircraft is not being used. Its usually on a bar about 5 foot long ( for easy removal from ground level) However to purposely cause the landing gear to go "up" is very hard to do for someone in the cockpit during push-out of a hangar. The person 'on the brakes' in the cockpit would be a 'responsible' person and so it must have been 100% accident. You just dont go over to the gear lever and pull it out and up !! which leads to suggest either major failure in nose wheel support or "where was the pin?" oo o o o o o o o oo o oo o o o oo o o o o oo o o o o oo Learn Braille while you can see - it's easier ! From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: roygbvgw@aol.com (RoyGbvgw) Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: roygbvgw@aol.com (RoyGbvgw) Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:26 Message-ID: Peter Coe expressed amazement at a report that a 747 at BA Cardiff had its undercarriage retracted while on the ground. Years ago when I read Nevil Shute's "No Highway", I was skeptical when the hero retracted an airliner's undercart while on the ground to disable the craft. I strongly suspect that the landing gear must be designed to overcenter mechanically such that the actuators don't have enough force to overcome the weight of the plane. The extreme rarity of this type of incident suggests something fail safe about the system. Regards, Roy G. P.S. It was amusing that the paperback I was reading had a cover painting of a jetliner, whereas the text described the propellers bending as the airliner settled to the tarmac. From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JIM ZIARNO Subject: B737 Info Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GASD Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:26 Message-ID: Does anyone know ?? What is the relative fuselage movement over a 3foot area on the top centerline of a B737-500 due to: 1. A/C Dynamics (In Flight and during Landing) 2. Pressure differentials (0 to 40,000 ft) From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: keenank@sugarloaf.ksc.nasa.gov (Kevin Keenan) Subject: Crew Lock-out Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:27 Message-ID: This is either old news, new news, of total BS. Has anyone heard of a crew that both left the seats and the crew cabin on a newer pax airliner, and had the door swing shut and lock behind them? Story is that they used a crash axe to return to the flight deck. Kevin Keenan From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: andelin@clinet.fi (Jan-Erik Andelin) Subject: MD80 crash in Argentina (Was: Lawn Dart) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:27 Message-ID: RD Rick (rickydik@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : >.. not familiar with any MD-80 crash in Argentina. Can you supply : >details? (Airline, date, location, cause, fatalities?) : Nobody seems to have data on that one, if it happened. Oh yes, it happened. On June 12, 1988, Austral Airlines' MD81 on approach in dense fog crashed killing 22 people near Posadas. More info on my MD80 homepage, welcome ... -- erkki * * * MD80 International Home Page * * * http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/md80.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- Jan-Erik Andelin * phone +358-19-584 622 Agatan 63 * e-mail andelin@clinet.fi 06100 Borga, Finland * WWW http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/ From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:27 Message-ID: In article , "David G. Davidson" writes: >727 APU installation is the best of the three, but also far from ideal. Can anyone describe to me what the 727 APU installation actually is? Thanks for any info. Gerald Wilson From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dave lawson Subject: Re: DC-9/MD-80 Type Certificate Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dave Lawson Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:27 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > > McDD got a new type certificate for the > >MD-88, and I believe that somehow they got it to cover the MD-80/81/ > >82/83/87 as well ... > >... If you look at the > >airworthiness certificate on the front bulkhead sometime you'll see > >what it's listed as... All of DL's are listed as TYPE: MD-88 > > While the FAA was once very retentive about type designations (see > past discussions about why the L-1011-385-1-14 has such a cumbersome > moniker), I thought they eased up and let MD use MD-88 as the official > designation, without forcing a new TC just for a name change. > We have done several STCs on the MD-8X series aircraft. Our documentation all reads DC-9-8X (X as applicable). I was lead to believe that their was no DC-9-80 and that it started with series 81. Dave From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ron Adams Subject: Re: DC-9/MD-80 Type Certificate Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Random Access Inc. +1 (800) 910-1190 Reply-To: ronadams@randomc.com Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:27 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > > Jennings Heilig wrote: > >Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure that all the MD-80/90 aircraft have the same type > >> certificate as the DC-9. Could you double check your references? > > > Nope, Karl is correct. McDD got a new type certificate for > >... If you look at the > >airworthiness certificate on the front bulkhead sometime you'll see > >what it's listed as... All of DL's are listed as TYPE: MD-88 > > The MD-90, as I heard it, was the first of the DC-9 series to have a > completely new type certificate. I looked thru http://www.faa.gov but > couldn't find anything relevant, unfortunately. On my ATP certificate, it just says DC-9. The training to fly the series just consists of differences training if one is already trained in one of the flavors...DC-9, MD-88, MD-90, etc. I know MC-D was pushing hard to have the FAA certify the series the same so they could sell them easier. Basically, the only differences are engine and avionics. Its still a fly-by-cable and tab system! Ron Adams MD88 (soon to be B-767/757) Captain From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:27 Message-ID: Martin Noakes replied to my posting about stopovers on the SAA JFK-JNB route but I was unable to reply to his address of mnoakes@idsonline.com "Isla del Sol" (Cape Verde Islands) rings a bell with my wife so that is almost surely the stopover point. But they were not permitted to leave the plane during the stopover. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: graemec@ibm.net (Graeme Cant) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:28 Message-ID: In article , Alan.Wong@anu.edu.au (Alan Wong) says... >Mmmm. This will also depend on how the aircraft is configured. For instance, >Qantas 767s were (probably still) not allowed to fly to Europe from Asia over >Afghanistan because their emergency oxygen packs were too small. If the plane >lost cabin pressure over Afghanistan, there wasn't enough oxygen to last till >the plane cleared the mountains. (Source: Australian Aviation) Other 767s >such as Lauda and Lufthansa/Condor had no such problems. Yes - but there's a bit more to it than that. There are two rules that come in here. I know the Australian ones but most countries are similar. 1. An RPT aircraft must have sufficient fuel to ensure it can reach a suitable airport from any point on the route if it suffers an engine failure or a decompression. 2. An unpressurised RPT aircraft is limited to 14000ft if oxygen is available or 10000ft if it isn't. The decompression requirement means that at the critical point, there has to be enough fuel to allow a descent to 14000ft, cruise at that altitude to the limit of available oxygen followed by cruise at 10000ft to the 'suitable' alternate. The fuel flows at 10000ft and 14000ft differ sufficiently that it is usually a good trade to carry (say) 200kg extra oxygen if that allows 1000kg less fuel to be carried. With the 747-400 depressurisation fuel is often required on the Pacific so they have large oxygen supplies. The Qantas 767 is different. They were purchased with 90/120 mins ETOPS in mind. They were always going to have enough fuel to reach a suitable airport - there had to be one within 120 mins. Carrying extra oxygen to allow cruise at 14000ft rather than 10000ft is no benefit so they only carry enough for the descent to 10000ft. Decompression fuel may become a problem with 180 mins ETOPS, however. Alan's right that 767s can't reach Europe over the Himalayas with the small oxygen pack. The escape routes from the Karakorams and Hindu Kush routes that are currently flown (the western end of the Himalayas) do not allow an immediate descent to 10000ft because of terrain. The aircraft must be able to cruise for some time up to 14000ft to reach the escape airports - Tashkent, Delhi, Karachi or Kabul - and the lack of oxygen stops the Qantas 767 doing this. The real problem in the area for all aircraft is Tibet rather than the Himalayas themselves. A chart I have shows that in the region bounded by 75E-105E and 30N-50N the lowest safe altitude is 15800ft, most MSAs lie above 20000ft and the highest is 31400ft. Even unlimited oxygen will probably not allow RPT flight over this area where a decompression might require one or two hours unpressurised cruise above 20000ft. I know a finer grid would show lower heights but the number and complexity of the escape routes needed to the few airports available are probably more than any regulatory body would accept (unless 'affordable safety' returns to CASA - in-joke for Australians :). Finally, AFAIK (and it's not my area) the 757 is the only modern Western aeroplane certified to takeoff and land at altitudes above 10000ft. An emergency landing by a 747 could produce a great new restaurant at Lhasa! Graeme Cant From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:28 Message-ID: Graeme Cant wrote: >An RPT aircraft must have ... RPT is a TLA I've never encountered before, at least not in the context of airliners. What's it mean? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Graham Glen Subject: Re: Back on the Named Engines thread... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ain't nobody here but us chickens Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:28 Message-ID: > >Perhaps someone at Rolls-Royce can tell us why RR only named one engine >after a mountain? As far as I'm aware, the Olympus was the only engine >RR named thus. Otherwise we'd have the Rolls-Royce Everest, K-2 (?), >Erebus (not a bad name...), Kilimanjaro, Fuji (maybe not), etc. Perhaps >it's because England doesn't have any memorable mountain names? > No, the real reason is because the Olympus was designed by Bristol- Siddeley. RR later took over control and inherited the engine. Graham -- Graham Glen graham@irving.demon.co.uk ".. and it always was possible to measure the distance between so-called management and the so-called creative by the time it took for a memo to go in one direction and a half-brick to come back in the other." Dennis Potter From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Back on the Named Engines thread... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:28 Message-ID: "J. Heilig" wrote: >Perhaps someone at Rolls-Royce can tell us why RR only named one engine >after a mountain? As far as I'm aware, the Olympus was the only engine >RR named thus. RR did not name this engine, it was so named by its developer, Bristol Aero-Engines, beginning in 1950; in late 1959, Bristol merged with Armstrong Siddeley Motors to form Bristol Siddeley; the latter company was purchased by Rolls-Royce in October 1966. From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: graemec@ibm.net (Graeme Cant) Subject: Re: Back on the Named Engines thread... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:28 Message-ID: In article , jheilig@gate.net (J. Heilig) says... > >Perhaps someone at Rolls-Royce can tell us why RR only named one engine >after a mountain? As far as I'm aware, the Olympus was the only engine >RR named thus... Well, if anybody except the two of us cares, it's actually because it's not really a RR engine. It was taken over from Bristol in one of those mind-blowing amalgamation exercises the UK industry was prone to going through before it reached its current state of perfection :). Bristol gave all their engines names from classical Greek - Hercules (no, not Poirot), Centaurus, Perseus, Mercury, Taurus, etc. for piston engines and Theseus, Proteus (world's most widely travelled icemaker) Orion, Orpheus, Olympus, etc. for turbines. As I recall, it (Olympus) was the best engine RR have made. The trouble with age is the amount of trivia you find you have lumbered yourself with... Graeme Cant From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:29 Message-ID: In article faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > >There aren't any risks, any more than there are on any flight in a modern >commercial jetliner. There are more risks, hence the operating and regulatory requirement imposing extraordinary crew, airframe, maintenance, and dispatch procedures for ETOPS operations. I'd still like to see whether these fabled "safety analyses" "proving" that twin operations are as good as others take into account the recent history involving volcanic dust ingestion. In each case, *multiple* engines were shut down, and *multiple* engines and systems suffered severe damage. If it's a question of eeking out every last bit of thrust, I'd much rather be in a 747 (or even an A340) for transpacific travel. >And since twin-engine ETOPS planes use the same types of systems used in >three and four-engine airplanes, the chances of an inflight problem are >the same for all of them. The problem is, you lose one engine, you've lost half your redundancy. You lose two in a 747, you've lost half of your redundancy. You lose two in a 777, you're going swimming. >Actually, there are less risks in an ETOPS airplane because not only does >the plane have additional backup capabilities in the critical systems, but But why do they need additional backups if the basic components are so reliable? :-) We can go a looooong way with this kind of logic. -- 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 Oct 10 11:29:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:29 Message-ID: DLawler (dlawler@aol.com) wrote: > to keep them in peak operating condition. Boeing has argued that the > evidence shows the more engines and aircraft has, the more likely there > will be a problem with one or more of the engines, and that consequently > 3+ engine airplanes are no more safe in that respect than 2 engine > airplanes. By this argument, double or triple redundancy in instruments or control systems should also be removed, since the more electronics or the more hydraulic lines you have, the greater the chance there is for one of them to fail. As I recall, about 10 years ago, an aircraft (DC10 or L1011, can't remember which) suffered catastrophic loss of engine oil pressure somewhere in the region of the Caribbean. Two out of the three engines were shut down. The remaining engine lasted long enough to reach a safe landing, though it too was suffering loss of oil pressure--a critical component had been wrongly installed in all three engines. Certainly this was a singular event, but one event is all it takes to make this passenger feel that redundancy is a comforting concept. From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:29 Message-ID: >As I recall, about 10 years ago, an aircraft (DC10 or L1011, can't >remember which) suffered catastrophic loss of engine oil pressure >somewhere in the region of the Caribbean. Two out of the three engines >were shut down. The remaining engine lasted long enough to reach a safe >landing, though it too was suffering loss of oil pressure--a critical >component had been wrongly installed in all three engines. It was an Eastern L-1011, flying from Miami to San Juan. I don't have the date but I thought it was in the 1970s. (Details appreciated if anyone can supply them.) The single point of failure in this incident was the mechanic -- one individual improperly serviced all three engines. I believe one of the operational ETOPS requirements is that the same mechanics cannot work on both engines. That's why ETOPS is painted clearly on the nose of all ETOPS-certified aircraft -- the ramp people need to follow special procedures in servicing an ETOPS aircraft. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Oct 10 11:29:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: audmcl@aol.com (AuDMCL) Subject: Sterile Cockpit ???? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: audmcl@aol.com (AuDMCL) Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:29 Message-ID: What is the "sterile cockpit" rule. Something to do with vasectomies? From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:47 Message-ID: Continuing on this megastring, the Boeing web page now has computerized, photographic images of the new 747s in the collage on its main page. The -500 (or maybe its the -600; which ever one is the increased capacity version) is fantastic looking. The length of the fuselage is finally in reasonable proportion with the width and height, resulting in a more 777-like appearance. Great looking-check it out. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:48 Message-ID: In article , Mark Ingram wrote: >On 1 Oct 1996, 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist wrote: > >> I wrote: >> Actually, I think the 737 meets or exceeds all the current regulatory >> requirements. > >> Terry, >> A difference that comes to mind is that the old 737's at least, only >> had to allow 1 second for reaction time for an aborted takeoff as a >> derivative, wheras the A320 as a new airplane had to allow two. That would be a performance issue that relates to balanced field length for takeoff; that is, a procedural difference, not a systems or structural difference. Besides, it is relatively easy to get that field length back with additional thrust so that performance numbers are comparable. >I do suspect that there could be any number of significant "grandfathered" >737 systems that would not meet current certification criteria. In one of >the _AW&ST_ articles discussing the NTSB's ongoing investigation of 737 >uncommanded rudder inputs (United and USAir, among others), it was >reported that the rudder PCU (power control unit, I believe it is) could >not be certified under today's regulations. I've not worked the 737 in a year or so, but I don't recall anything like that. That sounds like a suspiciously irresponsible statement to me. Do you recall exactly where you read that? FWIW, there cannot be "any number" of significant systems that do not meet current criteria. Each manufacturer has to request a specific "grandfathering" action from the appropriate regulatory agency, and they are all subject to negotiation with that same regulatory agency. The regulatory agency keeps very close tabs on what systems are in the airplane as well as their cert status. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: speedpuppy Subject: Re: Air Canada DC-9s questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Nando.net Public Access Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:48 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > On a recent DC-9 flight on Air Canada (LGA-YUL), I noticed the year > "1967" on a plaque on the left side of the entry door frame. (My first > flight in a DC-9 in years) > > I would be interested in knowing when the DC-9s were first introduced, > and when they were at their apex of sales, and when did sales of new > DC-9s stop ? Was the DC-9 immediatly replaced by the MD80 or was there a > few years in between ? you got me there about the sales...i believe the first revenue flight of the dc9 a -10 series was in 1962...the md80 entered into service in 1980..while a stretch version of the dc9 -50 series it was a decendant not a replacement of the orginal dc9...you most likely flew on a -30 series longer than the -10...( which did not have any slats (leading edge devices)). the next jump was the -30 holds about 100 people give or take depending upon airline configuration...then came the -50 series made popular at eastern air lines held about 120 or so...then the -80 or md80 holds about 144 next version is the md90 smaller than the 80 but more powerful and fuel efficient. > Are there still a lot or DC9s that were built prior to 1970 in service > in North America, or was the one I flew a true/rare "vintage" one ? USAIR operates some 79 dc-9 30 series most are in the late 60- early 70s age...but this is not old or young for a modern well kept jetliner.. lifespan usually is dictated by cycles ( takeoffs and landings 1up/down = 1 cycle ususally around 100000 cycles causes most of the pressure bulk heads to exceed tolerance then while it is replaceable it might not be cost effective thus this becomes the life limit however you can replace parts with new ones and thus the "age" of the jet might not reflect the orginal production date > Also, I noticed a hole in the leading edge of the tail, just above the > fuselage. Is this an air intake for the apu ? You were close the round hole aircraft right ( always reference as if you were in cockpit seated forward facing) is the apu exhaust.... aircraft left has a round hole with a butterfly valve in it this is for pressurization control... > Also, the rubber gasket on the front door seemed quite different from > other more modern planes. Is this the actual air tight barrier when door > is closed, of does this very visible rubber gasket serve a protective or > other function ? it also prevents rain from entering while deressurized with door closed ( on ground).. the door is a plug type door and cannot be opened in flight with aircraft pressurized...you must bring the door out about 1/2 inch then pivot inside airpland about 10inches then push it out...also in flight the rubber seal ( one smaller and hidden behind the large one you saw is the actual door seal...) > Finally, through an opening between the wall and overhead bins, I > noticed a copper pipe (looked like copper) running along the wall with > some hookups for every row. The pipe was about 1cm in diameter. Had it > not been for the Valuejet crash where those oxygen generators were > described, I would have thought that this pipe would have been the > oxygen supply. I seems too small for the air supply for the over head > air nozzles. What would this pipe be used for ? Is it possible that on > some models of DC9s, the oxygen was centrally supplied through such a > pipe as opposed to having individual generators over every row ? with out seeing the exact tube i cannot verify this but you are correct prior to o2 gens..there was a big o2 bottle in the cockpit that would supply the cabin...actually the generators are smaller and safer ( guarentee flow at each station) than the old way...also saves weight... hope this helped Dave Argonis dc9 md80 bac 111 b 737-300 sa-227 From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Mihir Pramod Shah" Subject: Re: Air Canada DC-9s questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Washington University in St. Louis, MO USA Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:48 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Mezei wrote in article in a DC-9 in years) > > I would be interested in knowing when the DC-9s were first introduced, > and when they were at their apex of sales, and when did sales of new > DC-9s stop ? Was the DC-9 immediatly replaced by the MD80 or was there a > few years in between ? The first DC-9, a -10 series model, rolled out in 1965, I believe. They were stretched in various stages during the next decade or so as the -20, -30, -40, and -50 series. The -30 and -50 series DC-9s are more common, I think. The first DC-9-80 was introduced around 1979, later renamed the MD-80 (to reflect the "McDonnell Douglas" name rather than "Douglas Corporation" name before McDonnell and Douglas Aircraft merged). The MD-80 design has also been modified in the MD-81, -82, -83, -87, and -88, though the differences between MD-80 variants is not as simple as fuselage stretches. The MD-87 is actually a shorter version, for example, and some modifications on other models include avionics and flight deck modernizations. I don't know anything about DC-9/MD-80 sales histories, but I'm sure there somewhere in a book or on a website. > > Are there still a lot or DC9s that were built prior to 1970 in service > in North America, or was the one I flew a true/rare "vintage" one ? You bet. As far as pre-1970, perhaps not a whole lot, but there are many, many DC-9's that are in the 20 and up age range. Northwest, TWA, to some extent USAir, and of course ValuJet, all have older DC-9's. I would imagine there are also many vintage DC-9 operators in developing countries, charters, etc. > > Also, I noticed a hole in the leading edge of the tail, just above the > fuselage. Is this an air intake for the apu ? Good question, I always wondered about that hole... Mihir Shah mps1@cec.wustl.edu From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: Air Canada DC-9s questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:49 Message-ID: This has almost nothing to do with your question, other that about Air Canada DC-9s. On a sightseeing trip to O'Hare last Friday I spotted an Air Canada "Nine" ready for immediate departure (an old one, I'd presume, since it was in old colors and looked rather short; my guess is a -10 or -30). I peered down the jetway, which was different from all the other jetways at O'Hare -- it was specially designed with "Air Canada and a maple leaf on the side and had small rectangular windows on the side. The angle of the jetway downward was very steep: something like 20 degrees, rather than the gentle slope of most jetways. My guess is that the gate was meant for larger aircraft (prob. A320s) which are taller, thus having their doors higher off the ground (the DC-9 is very low to the ground). Any other guesses? From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dale Thompson Subject: Re: Air Canada DC-9s questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InternetMCI Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:49 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >Also, I noticed a hole in the leading edge of the tail, just above the >fuselage. Is this an air intake for the apu ? > >Also, the rubber gasket on the front door seemed quite different from >other more modern planes. Is this the actual air tight barrier when door >is closed, of does this very visible rubber gasket serve a protective or >other function ? To answer two questions,The inlet at the base of the vertical stab. is the ram air supply for the air cycle machines(air conditioning) not the apu. the inlet for the apu is on the lower surface of the aircraft forward of the tailcone. The door seal does sealthe door allowing the aircraft to pressurize providing an airtight seal. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: 101334.1352@compuserve.com (Glenn Bridgland) Subject: Re: Air Canada DC-9s questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:49 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >On a recent DC-9 flight on Air Canada (LGA-YUL), I noticed the year >"1967" on a plaque on the left side of the entry door frame. (My first >flight in a DC-9 in years) >I would be interested in knowing when the DC-9s were first introduced, >and when they were at their apex of sales, and when did sales of new >DC-9s stop ? Was the DC-9 immediatly replaced by the MD80 or was there a >few years in between ? >Are there still a lot or DC9s that were built prior to 1970 in service >in North America, or was the one I flew a true/rare "vintage" one ? I can't tell you the dates of production, but as recently as 1989 I was flying DC9-30 series of this vintage. Well-maintained, they were still in good shape. There are a lot of them still around. >Also, I noticed a hole in the leading edge of the tail, just above the >fuselage. Is this an air intake for the apu ? It's the intake for the cooling air going to the airconditioning heat exchangers. The APU air intake is a set of doors under the aft fuselage. >Also, the rubber gasket on the front door seemed quite different from >other more modern planes. Is this the actual air tight barrier when door >is closed, of does this very visible rubber gasket serve a protective or >other function ? Being of the "plug" type, the door itself does most of the sealing by fitting the frame very tightly, with only a small additional rubber seal needed. The larger rubber gasket you saw is mainly protective, as you suggested. >Finally, through an opening between the wall and overhead bins, I >noticed a copper pipe (looked like copper) running along the wall with >some hookups for every row. The pipe was about 1cm in diameter. Had it >not been for the Valuejet crash where those oxygen generators were >described, I would have thought that this pipe would have been the >oxygen supply. I seems too small for the air supply for the over head >air nozzles. What would this pipe be used for ? Is it possible that on >some models of DC9s, the oxygen was centrally supplied through such a >pipe as opposed to having individual generators over every row ? You may indeed have been looking at the oxygen supply line, as the passenger oxygen is stored in a cylinder on the flight deck; at least it was on ours. Chemical generators were introduced (I think) with the MD80. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:49 Message-ID: I Macduff wrote many intriguing questions. At the risk of posting a too large note, I'll interleave my answers. > I would like to hear others views on where advances in aeronautics will > take us and how far away is the end. I find it curious that the basic > design of airliners hasn't changed that much ( nothing revolutionary > anyway) since the 707. How efficient can you make jet engines? OK, I guess I can't say anything "revolutionary" is added between the 707 and today, but the evolutionary changes in engine and aerodynamic efficiency, and control technology such as active control of CG, have resulted in range and fuel economy today that would have been regarded as pure science fiction in the 60's. Further improvements in propulsive efficiency are still possible with still higher pressures, temperatures and bypass ratios. > Do higher speeds (supersonic) come free or will they always require > compromise (ie fuel efficiency, safety, approach speeds)? Fuel efficiency, yes, but the goal being worked is +10% from subsonic. Safety, no. Approach speeds, not necessarily. The big technical hurdles now are noise and NOX emissions. > Are there any revolutionary aerodynamic designs still untried in the > wind tunnels or computer simulations? Always. > I believe that fifty years from now we will be flying airliners very > similar to todays, with only minor enhancements. They will still be > almost entirely subsonic and have very similar overall performance. I believe 15 or 20 years from now routes to the Pacific rim will be dominated by 300 seat mach 2.4 to 2.6 transports with entirely composite airframes. Engines will have ceramic or ceramic matrix composite turbines and burners, and geared fans. Overall efficiency will probably be another 40% better than it is now, at least. 50 years ahead is scary to guess. 50 years ago, PW thought there would be no significant commercial use of jets. But I'd think many of the changes will be the result of dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. The best way to get perspective about looking X years into the future is to go back X years into the past, and see what they were calling for the present. My favorite is Bill Gates in 1981, saying "640K ought to be enough for anybody." I saw a great collection of such quotes, i'll send it out if I can dig it up. -- Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: DennisO Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: LinDen Enterprises: Computer Consultant/Teacher in Tucson Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:50 Message-ID: > I would like to hear others views on where advances in aeronautics will > take us and how far away is the end. > > imacduff@aol.com You indicated that we haven't moved far from the Boeing 707 and we don't seem to be moving the commercial airliner along much right now. You are probably right. In the 50's I took a close look at the reciprocating engine and would have bet lots of dough that the very very inefficient recip would be long gone as we near the 21st century. I then watched the Chrysler turbine car come and go. I then watched the Indy 500 virtually ban jet engines ensuring that no further research would occur. And of course, the automotive world watched Mazda struggle for years on the Wankel engine. However, here we are knocking at the door of year 2000 and we still drive engines where the pistons reverse directions thousands of times per minute. Good thing we got jet engines going in circles before we stagnated. A good indicator of 50 years from now is to ask, what are Lockheed, Boeing, and others working on right now? I haven't seen any articles that indicate any attempt to go faster, higher, and safer-airframe wise. P.S. Don't flame. If you know where to find more info, please pass it along. Some futurist believe that the next speed gain for common travel is underground using evacuated (vacuum) tunnels and electromagnetic fields providing the acceleration and deceleration. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nak@lucent.com (Neil A Kirby x5304) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:50 Message-ID: In article , IMacduff wrote: > >I would like to hear others views on where advances in aeronautics will >take us and how far away is the end. I find it curious that the basic >design of airliners hasn't changed that much ( nothing revolutionary >anyway) since the 707. How efficient can you make jet engines? Do higher >speeds (supersonic) come free or will they always require compromise (ie >fuel efficiency, safety, approach speeds)? Are there any revolutionary >aerodynamic designs still untried in the wind tunnels or computer >simulations? It depends on where you draw the line between evolution and revolution. Comparing the turbo jets of the 707 to the 100 inch fans of the 777 is a bit of a stretch. I would probably call it evolutionary, but it's long path from one to the other. In the revolution class, NASA just reported data from the F16 XL test jet about laminar flow over swept wings at supersonic speeds. The article mentioned words like "Holy Grail" in terms of the last big advance in aerodynamics. I read it on sci.space.news just a few minutes ago. That one has the 300 passenger mach 2.4 class aircraft in mind. Neil Kirby DoD #0783 nak@lucent.com Lucent Technologies - Home of Bell Labs Innovations (Formerly AT&T) Bell Labs Columbus OH USA +1 (614) 860-5304 From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU (Pablo Wangermann) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Laboratory for Control and Automation Princeton University Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:50 Message-ID: In article , IMacduff wrote: > >I would like to hear others views on where advances in aeronautics will >take us and how far away is the end. I find it curious that the basic >design of airliners hasn't changed that much ( nothing revolutionary >anyway) since the 707. How efficient can you make jet engines? Do higher >speeds (supersonic) come free or will they always require compromise (ie >fuel efficiency, safety, approach speeds)? Are there any revolutionary >aerodynamic designs still untried in the wind tunnels or computer >simulations? > >I believe that fifty years from now we will be flying airliners very >similar to todays, with only minor enhancements. They will still be >almost entirely subsonic and have very similar overall performance. I am >criticized for this by day-dreamers who believe Mr. Ingenuity always has >another trick up his sleeve, and hypersonic travel will be commonplace in >the future. However, airliners of today are a mature technology, with >most major advances to take place on the flightdeck and not in the actual >airframe. Even technology on the flightdeck will mature and stabalize >soon. After all, once you can pinpoint your position in real time >anywhere in the world to within a few feet and carry a topographic map of >the entire world on CD ROM (not far away), where do you go from there? A few random thoughts on this subject, sticking entirely to subsonic flight (I'll let others discuss supersonic/hypersonic flight). 1) Until you move to a flying-wing design, the tube with wings design is about as efficient as it can get. Small benefits may be made with canards (see biz-jets like the Avanti), particularly for weight, but may be offset by system complexity and certification issues. 2) Current airports couldn't handle a flying wing design, except at remote stands. As the designers of VHCTs are finding, the current airport design is very limiting as to what you can do (Wing span limits, undercarriage loading, etc) 3) ALs could get serious benefits not so much from improved aerodynamics but from lower turnaround times. 10-15 minutes to de-plane a 757 and 30+ to board it is ridiculous. With just one jet-pier to one narrow door to one or two narrow isles, this will always be a problem. In Europe's small to medium airports, where it's still far more common to walk or bus across the tarmac and load and aircraft through front and rear doors loading time is much shorter. (Personally, I much prefer to smell the jet fuel and hear the screaming APUs, than antisceptic, constricting jetways). There have been concepts (see Jane's Airport Review - one of the 95 issues) for using all the doors on boths sides of an aircraft to deplane, service, then board, to tackle precisely this problem. However, it will take a coalition of major airlines and a major airport construction project (T5 at Heathrow?) to get an airport that allows this and aircraft that can make full use of this. 4) V/Stol is at the moment a very unfashionable area of civil air transport. None of the forecasts for V/STOL from the 60s and 70s have come true. Quietly, some airlines (and aircraft) are making a success of this niche (London City, Berne, the Avro RJ, etc). For every step forward for this segment, however, there seems to be a step back. Chicago Meigs field's closure is an example. Many downtown airports are reserved for business only (Cleveland riverside, I think). I believe that this area will continue to quietly expand for 2 reasons i) The main choke point in today's air transport system is runway capacity. Airlines will increasingly look for under-utilized airports, which usually means shorter runways. Also, congested hub airports, may not have room to add extra full-length runways, but could add short strips. While the success of "Stub" runways has so far been hindered by the lack of suitable ATC equipment to handle the different approaches, the advent of GPS-based ATC procedures and systems could (finally) improve the feasibility of this. ii) Many passengers (myself included) are sick of having to fight choked access roads to distant mega-airports, to distant parking lots, to long check-in lines, etc. This can easily take longer than the flight itself. As the large airports clog-up, city-center and under-used suburban airports (e.g., Trenton, NJ, Providence, RI) will be able to attract more air services. The success of the CRJ, and the arrival of the EMB-145 will help in attracting prop-averse (!!) passenegers. Oh - thought of #3 iii) The V-22 may yet be a basis for a vehicle that will be able to use downtown heliports and make a profit for operators AND provide significant passenger service. This may still be more than a decade away, but don't count it out. So, that's what I see in my crystal ball for aircraft and air transport. John Wangermann -- John P. Wangermann wangermn@princeton.edu Dept of Mech and Aero Eng. (609) 258 5340 E Quad, Olden St, Fax (609) 258-6109 Princeton NJ 08544, USA From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:51 Message-ID: IMacduff wrote: > > I would like to hear others views on where advances in aeronautics will > take us and how far away is the end. I don't know that you can definitively say that there is "an end." After all, people said man would never fly. I agree that sitting here, not being an expert in aeronautics, I don't see where we are going next, but that doesn't mean that the next revolution is not lurking 20 years, or 10 years in the future. > I believe that fifty years from now we will be flying airliners very > similar to todays, with only minor enhancements. That is not at all unlikely, but it is not a given either. Our transportation technology seems to be in an extended period of refinement, rather than innovation- this applies to everything from cars to airplanes. Compare the cars of the 1920s to the cars of the 1950s- there was a vast change over that 40-year span. Cars went from average speeds of ~30 mph, in the open air without air condidioning and with wooden-spoked wheels, to enclosed, air conditioned, automatic-transmissioned machines with top speeds in the vicinity of 120-130 mph (OK, thats a Chrysler 300, the "average" 50's car topped out in the 80-100 mph range). In that time period, airliners went from tri-motors to the 707. Now compare the ends of the next 50 year period: 1950s to present. Cars are no faster, but they are lighter and more efficient (slightly...) and are cleaner running. They are generally safer, and while I would say they are no more reliable, they achieve the same reliability with far less maintenance. Note however, that a 50's car can drive happily in rush hour traffic with modern cars- thats not true of a 20's car! Airplanes have gone from the 707 to the 777 and A330. They are no faster, but are quieter, cleaner, more efficient, and carry more. But again, 707's are still out there working away beside the new equipment. Heck, so are DC-3's! The first 40 year period I mentioned contained a transportation revolution; the next 50 years saw gradual, but relentless, refinement of the concept. However, we never know when the next revolution is at hand, or exactly what that revolution will be. > After all, once you can pinpoint your position in real time > anywhere in the world to within a few feet and carry a topographic map of > the entire world on CD ROM (not far away), where do you go from there? Anywhere you want to, but while using less fuel, spending less on maintenance, making less noise, and perhaps going a little faster :-) After all, pinpointing your location doesn't affect the problem of actually *getting* to another location. Or maybe someone will figure out a way to implement the 'Star Trek' transporter, and all the planes will get parked. More likely, the next revolution will be something very obscure that few people, if any, have even thought of today. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: solum@online.no (Aleksander Solum) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Mango Software Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:51 Message-ID: In article , imacduff@aol.com (IMacduff) wrote: > I would like to hear others views on where advances in aeronautics will > take us and how far away is the end. I find it curious that the basic > design of airliners hasn't changed that much ( nothing revolutionary > anyway) since the 707. How efficient can you make jet engines? Do higher > speeds (supersonic) come free or will they always require compromise (ie > fuel efficiency, safety, approach speeds)? Are there any revolutionary > aerodynamic designs still untried in the wind tunnels or computer > simulations? well, I _do_ agree with you in that in the 34 (!) years from the DC-9 we have developed a 747 ( well, Boeing ) and in the next years to now...a Boeing 747 with electronic controls and a bigger upper deck! but there are other things, really, to keep in mind. first, World War II. at the beginning of WW2 the military air forces of a lot of countries ( I know- I'm Norwegian ) were based on things like the Gloster Gladiator ( yes, we had a lot of these Fokker VII's I think they're called! ). and in these five years, Germany developed a jet fighter ( ME 262 ) with two jet engines, retractable undercarriage, streamlined-modern design, swept wings...it looks like it's from 20 years later. say we had a 10-year WWII. I'm sure we'd do the same technical advancements, but a nuclear war is not worth it. then, we now use computers to design our planes. what you&me are _really_ talking about is that from the _outside_ planes look like in the '70s, but now the wings & engines ( well, the whole plane as in the 777 ) are designed to get max results on 3D computer workstations, all the controls in the plane are digital ( these are of course only the most modern airliners ), and boy, I do say we've progressed. so I don't know...I suppose that on the _inside_ we've had a REAL revolution, but keep in mind that the Concorde project, which is one of the most advanced airliners to date, even if it's not fly-by-wire or anything ) was started before 1960. so I suppose I'm both pro and anti to this. what do you other guys think? Best, K.Aleksander Solum solum@online.no From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kbrews@kiowa.wildstar.net (Keith Brewster) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Wildfire Internet Services Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:51 Message-ID: In article , IMacduff wrote: >soon. After all, once you can pinpoint your position in real time >anywhere in the world to within a few feet and carry a topographic map of >the entire world on CD ROM (not far away), where do you go from there? Well, you're thinking of static information. What about weather data and forecasts? Better turbulence avoidance, etc. Better ATC and ground "systems" rather than aircraft hardware may see the most innovation affecting airline ops. -Keith From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ctillier@leland.Stanford.EDU (Clemens Emanuel Tillier) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:51 Message-ID: IMacduff wrote: >I believe that fifty years from now we will be flying airliners very >similar to todays, with only minor enhancements. The guys two doors down the hallway from my lab are building a model prototype for McDD, which looks quite different from anything flying today... except maybe the B-2 ?!? It's a blended wing body aircraft with an expected capacity of 800+ passengers. For now they're just building a 17-foot wingspan model to test the flight control system. Check out their web page at http://aa.stanford.edu/~frl/bwb/BWBProject.html __ Clemens E. Tillier _________________________ Stanford, Califonia, USA ___ __ ctillier@leland.stanford.edu ____________________________________________ __ Home: (415) 497-7593 __ Space Systems Development Lab: (415) 725-9559 ___ From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:51 Message-ID: In article , IMacduff wrote: > >I would like to hear others views on where advances in aeronautics will >take us and how far away is the end. I find it curious that the basic >design of airliners hasn't changed that much ( nothing revolutionary >anyway) since the 707. How efficient can you make jet engines? Do higher >speeds (supersonic) come free or will they always require compromise (ie >fuel efficiency, safety, approach speeds)? Are there any revolutionary >aerodynamic designs still untried in the wind tunnels or computer >simulations? > >I believe that fifty years from now we will be flying airliners very >similar to todays, with only minor enhancements. They will still be >almost entirely subsonic and have very similar overall performance. Mature technologies can be overthrown, however. I doubt that manual typewriters changed all that much between 1900 and 1980, aprt from incremental improvements. However, technology then produced something better and they were then superceded completely. I believe that something similar will at some point happen with commercial air travel. Do I think we will be still flying in subsonic aircraft similar to what we have now in 20 years time? Yes. Do I think we will e still flying in subsonic aircraft similar to what we have now in 50 years time? Maybe. Do I think we will be still flying in subsonic aircraft similar to what we have now in 100 years time. No. 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 "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason" -- Tom Paine. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:52 Message-ID: In article , IMacduff wrote: > >I would like to hear others views on where advances in aeronautics will >take us and how far away is the end. I find it curious that the basic >design of airliners hasn't changed that much ( nothing revolutionary >anyway) since the 707. How efficient can you make jet engines? Do higher >speeds (supersonic) come free or will they always require compromise (ie >fuel efficiency, safety, approach speeds)? Are there any revolutionary >aerodynamic designs still untried in the wind tunnels or computer >simulations? Talk about your wide-ranging questions. :-) I rather doubt that there will ever be an end to aeronautical improvements. Look at it this way, people have been farming for some 12,000 years or so and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight for agricultural improvements. Same for aeronautics or just about any other scientific or engineering inquiry. As for where it will lead us, who knows? Your assertion that the basic design of airlines has not changed since the 707 is not accurate. A better way of stating what I think you meant is that the commercial heavy jet transports all have very similar exterior configurations. There are a lot of folks here who can explain why that is so, but I'm going to guess that your underlying point is that technology drives configuration, but since configurations haven't changed much, then the technology hasn't changed much. Which may lead you to wonder where the hell did all that technical R&D money go to anyway? :-) Suffice to say that airliner design has change significantly since the days fo the venerable 707. Most of changes are in ways that the average passenger doesn't see. Metalurgy, glass cockpits, improved engines, better fatigue life, more reliable systems, lower drag airfoils, more powerful flap systems, the list is just endless, really. Jet engines can be made as efficient as the Carnot cycle efficiency for the operating temperatures, and no more. Want a higher efficiency, burn a hotter fuel. Supersonic speeds do not come free. It takes more energy to fly faster, so fuel economy is likely to continue to be an issue (at least when compared to the equivalent subsonic aircraft) for a long time into the future. Safety does not have to be, and should not be, compromised for supersonic flight. Approach speeds are on the rise for subsonic aircraft already, in order to achieve some performance targets, so I rather think that the approach speeds of supersonic aircraft will be acceptable as soon as the other problems can be solved. Revolutionary aerodynamics is a career field, and I'm certainly not qualified to give you a quick overview of the state-of-the-virtual-art. Join the AIAA and subscribe to the Journal of Aircraft, which can also be found at most technical universities, and gorge yourself on interesting aerodynamics articles. :-) >I believe that fifty years from now we will be flying airliners very >similar to todays, with only minor enhancements. They will still be >almost entirely subsonic and have very similar overall performance. I am >criticized for this by day-dreamers who believe Mr. Ingenuity always has >another trick up his sleeve, and hypersonic travel will be commonplace in >the future. However, airliners of today are a mature technology, with >most major advances to take place on the flightdeck and not in the actual >airframe. Even technology on the flightdeck will mature and stabalize >soon. After all, once you can pinpoint your position in real time >anywhere in the world to within a few feet and carry a topographic map of >the entire world on CD ROM (not far away), where do you go from there? I disagree. Look back 50 years. Not a single commercial jet transport in the air (yes, the Comet is almost there). Today, you just can't compete in most markets with a propeller driven aircraft; the jets eat you up. Further, the pace of technological change is increasing, so I'd expect to be traveling on a totally new kind of aircraft in fifty years. I'm afraid I've no opinion on the relative commonplaceness of hypersonic travel half a century from today. :-) One last word, never underestimate the inventiveness of the avionics industry. Those guys are amazing, and I think we've only just seen the tip of the iceberg of what they are capable of giving us. Currently, we are seeing the passenger cabin getting wired and this is only the beginning. Expect your own internet access, video-on-demand, and god knows what else within the next ten to twenty years. The pace of change may seem relatively slow, but everyone from the airframers to the regulatory agencies to the avionics manufacturers are trying to be careful. Anyone want to hear my views on the upcoming SuperBowl? :-) -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Subject: Re: RAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:52 Message-ID: As someone pointed at to me after my first post, the RAT on the 767 and 777 is on the RIGHT side, not the left side. Apparently I was suffering some sort of memory dyslexia because I could and can clearly recall where the RAT was and how we ground-tested it. - David Lawler Boeing Defense and Space formerly Boeing Commercial Flight Test From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Gary Cowens Subject: Human factors relation to cabin crew Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ansett New Zealand Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:52 Message-ID: Can anybody please point us in the direction to where we can find out any information regarding the following: Application of Human factors therory to cabin crew in the air transport environment. We have the human factors therory relation to pilots. many thanks for your assistance Ansett New Zealand Cabin crew training centre From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Sterile Cockpit ???? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:52 Message-ID: In article , audmcl@aol.com says... > >What is the "sterile cockpit" rule. Something to do with vasectomies? > The term normally is used to descibe the requirement that no unnecessary discussions, conversations with other people, etc should occur below 10,000 after takeoff and during descent to landing. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lorck@sn.no (Petter Lorck) Subject: Re: Sterile Cockpit ???? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SN Internett Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:53 Message-ID: audmcl@aol.com (AuDMCL) wrote: >What is the "sterile cockpit" rule. Something to do with vasectomies? > This is how the flight training manual for my airline defines "sterile cockpit": "During critical phases of flight, no cockpit crew member should perform any duties that are not required for safe operation of the aircraft. Duties such as calls on company frequencies and PA announcements from cockpit for non safety-related purposes, are considered as not required for the safe operation of the aircraft. Distracting activities and conversation or visits to the cockpit by cabin attendants or others should not be permitted during these phases of flight. Critical phases of flight in this respect include ground operation involving taxi, take-off and landing and all flight operation during climb and descent below Transition Level/Transition Altitude." Other airlines may have a different policy, as to when sterile cockpit rules is in effect. Petter. -- "Bother!" said Pooh, and called in an air strike. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: speedpuppy Subject: Re: Sterile Cockpit ???? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Nando.net Public Access Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:53 Message-ID: AuDMCL wrote: > > What is the "sterile cockpit" rule. Something to do with vasectomies? faa rule states that no "non-pertanent" (sorry spelling) communication will occur during aircraft operations below 10,000 ft.....this includes from brake release (taxi) to brake set (at gate) From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? 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: 11 Oct 96 19:44:53 Message-ID: GWilson404@aol.com writes: >>727 APU installation is the best of the three, but also far from ideal. >Can anyone describe to me what the 727 APU installation actually is? ISTM it's not certified for in-flight use..... -- 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 Oct 11 19:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:53 Message-ID: GWilson404@aol.com wrote: > > In article , "David G. Davidson" > writes: > > >727 APU installation is the best of the three, but also far from ideal. > > Can anyone describe to me what the 727 APU installation actually is? > Its in the starbord (right hand) wing root. The exhaust exits from the top of the wing, a bit aft of the emergency exits. The only drawback I can think of to this installation is that it is noisier inside the cabin than an APU buried back in the tail, because the exhaust stream is literally a couple of feet from the passengers. Maybe the maintenence guys on the list can give more details- I *think* the APU is accessible through the starbord wheel well, so its much easier to service than a tail-mounted unit. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Graeme Cant Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:53 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > > Graeme Cant wrote: > >An RPT aircraft must have ... > > RPT is a TLA I've never encountered before, at least not in the > context of airliners. What's it mean? Sorry, I try to avoid private jargon but that one slipped through. Australian aviation law talks about 'regular public transport' - RPT. I think it's the equivalent of the US term 'common carrier'. The FAA talks about 'Part xxx carrier' to define the rules a carrier is licenced under. 'RPT' applies to the trunk airlines in Australia. Graeme Cant From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Art Utay Subject: JAL bird's eye spinner Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AlliedSignal Engines Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:54 Message-ID: Does anyone have an AW&ST index handy going back a number of years? Looking for the issue which contained a news article about Japan Airlines 'bird's eye' spinner paint scheme. -- Arthur W. Utay, Senior Aerospace Specialist art.utay@phxase.allied.com (602) 231-1321 Cessna 180 N180Y ASEL, Com'l Inst, Comm'l Glider From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tukano Subject: Re: Crew Lock-out Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:54 Message-ID: Kevin Keenan wrote: > > This is either old news, new news, of total BS. > Has anyone heard of a crew that both left the seats and the crew cabin on a > newer pax airliner, and had the door swing shut and lock behind them? Story > is that they used a crash axe to return to the flight deck. > I have heard exactly the same story, but not the details of the Flight and A/C type. I have been told that it happened in Central- or Westafrica in the late 70s or early 80s. In my version, the reason for the captain was to leave the cockpit to meet a stewardess in the back of the cabin. The first officer left his seat because he was estonished that the captain hadn't been back at the Top Of Descent. This says to me that it was probably a Turboprop with one Flight Attendant, and probabaly without an on Board Communication device for the crewmembers. When both the Captain and the First Officer walked back to the cockpit, they were not able to open the door, and the Passengers realised the situation immediately. They sad to the crew that "it would be very helpful for all of us if you succeed quickly in openning that door". I don't know if it is the same story you mean, but it has at least a lot of similarities, So long, Tukano. Feel Free- Feel Zero G! -- -- mailto:immoeadj@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: Re: Crew Lock-out Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The American University Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:54 Message-ID: In article keenank@sugarloaf.ksc.nasa.gov (Kevin Keenan) writes: >This is either old news, new news, of total BS. >Has anyone heard of a crew that both left the seats and the crew cabin on a >newer pax airliner, and had the door swing shut and lock behind them? Story >is that they used a crash axe to return to the flight deck. I don't believe it -- the lead flight attendant always seems to have a key to the flight deck, and I can't believe there's not another one floating around in the cabin somewhere, too. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: B737 Info Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:54 Message-ID: At 11:29 AM 10/10/96, you wrote: >Does anyone know ?? >What is the relative fuselage movement over a 3foot area on the top >centerline of a B737-500 due to: > 1. A/C Dynamics (In Flight and during Landing) > 2. Pressure differentials (0 to 40,000 ft) I am a little confused by your question. Movement relative to what? Are you looking for fuselage expansion or bending? or for movement of the entity off of the centerline during coordinated flight? Where is the 3 ft area located...front, middle, or in the rear of the fuselage? Is the 3 ft area just a grid placed over the CG or what? Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "R.Schmidt" Subject: AW: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:54 Message-ID: >I was catching up on my backlog of magazines at the weekend, and in >one of them was a short news piece about a 747 that was getting wheeled >out of BA's Cardiff maintenance facility, when someone inadvertently >retracted the undercarriage. The result was $1million repair charge. ... >Does anyone know more about this incident in particular, and this kind >of scenario in general. Late June, 1995 Team Aer Lingus' Fokker 50, EI-FKA, c/n 20118, endured maintenane. During the test of the NLG, a mechanic forgot to lock the so called 'ground-lock-pin' of the MLG. Result: the NLG and the LH MLG were retracted at the same moment and the plane badly damaged! Source: 'Airnieuws', Holland. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Carpenter Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Posted via CAIS Internet Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:55 Message-ID: McElravy wrote: > > > I was catching up on my backlog of magazines at the weekend, and in > > one of them was a short news piece about a 747 that was getting wheeled > > out of BA's Cardiff maintenance facility, when someone inadvertently > > retracted the undercarriage. The result was $1million repair charge. Not quite the same thing, but a story from a friend of mine at the time had a Capital Airlines Viscount deploy its spoilers a few feet above the runway at DCA. It seems they were interconnected to the gear to deploy when the gear took the plane's weight and some interlock failed. The plane was said to have been written off, though there were no serious injuries. Bob Carpenter w3otc@amsat.org From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:55 Message-ID: roygbvgw@aol.com (RoyGbvgw) wrote: Peter Coe expressed amazement at a report that a 747 at BA Cardiff had its undercarriage retracted while on the ground. Years ago when I read Nevil Shute's "No Highway", I was skeptical when the hero retracted an airliner's undercart while on the ground to disable the craft. Roy, As I remember it, a technician explains in passing to the good boffin Honey that he (the technician) has just disabled the squat switch mechanism for some reason, and explains the hazard. This will only protect against actively raising the gear, not it's folding up by itself. As another submitter correctly pointed out, even light airplanes are equipped with weight on wheels switches to inhibit accidental gear retraction. At flight test, they put locking pins in the retraction mechanism after landing and before towing. Nobody I've asked so far knows how likely it would be to fold up if the pins weren't there, but it's invariant SOP to put them in. (And to hold them up for the flight crew to see after the pins are pulled. before engine start and taxi.) -- Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. From kls Fri Oct 11 19:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:55 Message-ID: >At flight test, they put locking pins in the retraction mechanism after >landing and before towing. To follow up a note I sent earlier, I found someone who knew more about gear pins, who said that the airlines consistently remove the gear pins the first thing after delivery and toss them. The lock mechanisms are overcenter backed by beefy springs, so something drastic must have been done wrong. -- Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:31:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: STHOOTP Incidents Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Date: 12 Oct 96 02:31:25 Message-ID: I know that extensive statistical studies have been done showing that the incidence of fatal accidents aboard commercial aircraft is quite low -- of the order of magnitude 1.0E-6 per passenger-flight. However, I have never seen any statistics on the incidence of STHOOTP events. I am referring, of course, to "Scare The Heck Out Of The Passengers" incidents, that is, events that cause normal persons (excluding me -- a nervous flyer) to become frightened. Now, I have taken about 500 commercial flights in my life time. I have experienced one aborted take off, and two episodes of scary (to me) turbulence. This small sample indicates an incidence of about 0.6% per passenger-flight. Dose any one have a feel for the true incidence rate? Can we sci.aeronautics.airliners readers conduct an informal study? If you would like to participate, please send me (via e-mail to Andy.Goldfinger@jhuapl.edu) an estimate of the number of flights you have taken in your lifetime, and a count of STHOOTP incidents, with a short description of each. I will combine the results, and report them to the news group. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: jahlstro@cisco.com (John Ahlstrom) Subject: Re: Great Circle mapper Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: cisco Systems, Incorporated Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:55 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >In May, 1994, Terry Drinkard started a thread on Really Long Range >Commercial Transports. That sent me scurrying for my atlas and to >find an equation for computing great circle distances, and was the >genesis of a much larger project -- not just to compute distances >along a great circle route, but to show them on a map. I have seen (in a restaurant!) a large number of maps each of which was centered on a major world city and any straight line form which was a great circle. Does anyone know where I can buy such maps? Does anyone know of any PC or workstation software that generates such maps? Thanks -- John Ahlstrom jahlstrom@cisco.com 408-526-6025 Using Java to Decrease Entropy Any neural system sufficiently complex to generate the axioms of arithmetic is too complex to be understood by itself. Kaekel's Conjecture From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Great Circle mapper Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:55 Message-ID: [This is drifting away from aviation -- is there any newsgroup appropriate for maps and cartography?] >I have seen (in a restaurant!) a large number of maps each of which >was centered on a major world city and any straight line form which >was a great circle. That would be a map drawn using an orthographic projection, in oblique form unless you center on a pole (polar) or the equator (equatorial). The reference section of the Perry-Castaneda Library Map Collection has a nice description of this and other projections -- look at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/Cartographic_reference.html > Does anyone know where I can buy such maps? Polar ones shouldn't be too hard to come by, but finding good ones based on arbitrary centers might be a challenge. > Does anyone know of any PC or workstation software that generates > such maps? Some of the PC mapping software might be able to do this for you but I don't know much about those packages. For workstations, various mapping tools can be found on the net but they're essentially kits, with some scavenging needed to collect the data and glue everything together, so you'd have to want these maps pretty badly. The most popular WWW mapper, at Xerox, has several projections but orthographic isn't one of them. Several other WWW sites do support this projection: http://www.aquarius.geomar.de/omc/ This generates nice maps, but the interface wasn't thought out clearly for the orthographic projection -- you specify the top and bottom latitudes for the map, which is fine for rectangular or Mercator projections, but nearly meaningless for orthographic which most logically is based on a center point. (The comments indicate the author is aware of the need for some interface enhancements.) With some tinkering (try N=90, S=89.99, E=180, W=180 for the north pole, almost) you can get something decent. http://www.neosoft.com/~forge/java/Cartog/Cartog.html If your browser has Java support, the Cartography Applet is nice, if a bit slow to load, and it can do orthographic projections based on any center point you choose. http://puddle.mit.edu/jg/mapoptjg/ This also works from a center point and can do orthographic maps. It's not as refined as the other two, but works reasonably well. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:56 Message-ID: I beleive that Resolute Bay (YRB - Long: 94 50W lat: 74 42N) is capable of handling large jets even though its runway is gravel. It handles 737 and 727s easily every day and I was told that a 747 has landed there at least once. Resolute is some 1713 km from the North Pole. There is also Alert at the nortern tip of Ellesmere island (approx 85 00N, which brings it to about 600km from the north pole). Alert is a military outpost closed to the public, but it does handle military transports. Could this be considered as a "legal" emergency landing point when considering ETOPS routes ? Assuming a ground speed of 900kmh (560 statute miles/hour), 180minutes gives a range of roughly 2700 km. So, if Alert is legal, and if there is an airport some 2000km south of the north pole on the russian (or scandinavian) side, then would ETOPS be possible ? Is there a clear definition of what facilities are required on the ground to make a legal emergency landing strip for ETOPS consideration? In the western artcic, there is Inuvik (YEV) at 133 43W 68 21N with paved runway (again capable of handling large military transports (that launched the cruise missile for instance), F18s and 737s. In the southern eastern arctic, there is Iqaluit (YFB) at 68 31W 63 45N with similar facilities. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:57 Message-ID: >In the western artcic, there is Inuvik (YEV) at 133 43W 68 21N with >paved runway (again capable of handling large military transports >(that launched the cruise missile for instance), F18s and 737s. In the >southern eastern arctic, there is Iqaluit (YFB) at 68 31W 63 45N with >similar facilities. Iqaluit, formerly known as Frobisher or Frobisher Bay, hence the YFB IATA code, is interesting as it allows a non-ETOPS (60 minute rule time) crossing of the North Atlantic by filling a small "no go" area between Sondre Stromfjord and Goose Bay. It's not necessary for 90 minutes or greater rule times, and for Atlantic crossings too/from the east coast of North America it's too far west of the shortest routes to be useful. It's an alternate for flights between Europe and the west coast, though. I don't know about Inuvik (YEV), but it looks like it might be a useful location. >There is also Alert at the nortern tip of Ellesmere island (approx >85 00N, which brings it to about 600km from the north pole). Alert is >a military outpost closed to the public, but it does handle military >transports. Could this be considered as a "legal" emergency landing >point when considering ETOPS routes ? In more remote areas, miltary fields definitely can be alternates. Diego Garcia, for example, is an alternate in the Indian Ocean even though it's little more than an atoll with a militar airstrip on it. Alert has an IATA code -- YLT -- which may or may not have any significance as to its availability as an alternate. >I beleive that Resolute Bay (YRB - Long: 94 50W lat: 74 42N) is >capable of handling large jets even though its runway is gravel. It >handles 737 and 727s easily every day and I was told that a 747 has >landed there at least once. Given how far north it is, I suspect the gravel is permanently frozen and probably almost as good as concrete! In any case, at 120 minute and greater rule times, it's redundant if Inuvik, Iqaluit, and Alert are all available -- look at http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?RANGE=778nm@(YRB,YEV,YFB,YLT)&PATH=YRB&RANGE-STYLE=outline That doesn't mean it's not useful, though, since weather closures may close other alternates. >So, if Alert is legal, and if there is an airport some 2000km south of >the north pole on the russian (or scandinavian) side, then would ETOPS >be possible ? That last part is a big if. Scandanavian airports aren't enough since Russia is so large, and airports in northern Russia are scarce and may not be available for commercial operations if they exist. The following airports are from the ETOPS database used in my mapper. Combined with Inuvik, Iqaluit, and Alert, they form a ring defining the northern edge of ETOPS operations. BIAR Akureyri, Iceland ENVA Trondheim (Varrnes), Norway LED St. Petersburg, Russia SVO Moscow (Sheremetyevo 2), Russia OVB Novosibirsk, Russia ULN Ulan Bator, Mongolia VVO Vladivostok, Russia UHSS Yuzhno Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin, Russia UHPP Petropavlovsk, Kamchatka, Russia PASY Shemya AFB, Alaska, United States AKN King Salmon, Alaska, United States The map still shows a sizable no-go area over northern Siberia and the Artic Ocean above Siberia, even at a 180 minute rule time: http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?RANGE=1167nm@(YLT,YEV,YFB,+BIAR,ENVA,+LED,SVO,OVB,ULN,VVO,+UHSS,UHPP,PASY,AKN)&RANGE-STYLE=outline Murmansk (ULMM) probably has a suitable airport and helps some, but the routes it opens up to ETOPS are of pretty dubious value -- the most interesting I can see is San Francisco (SFO) to Tashkent (TAS). I doubt that's a route that's begging for non-stop service. JFK-SIN is possible with Murmansk, but at 8286nm it's beyond the reach of any current airliner, twin or otherwise. (The four-engined A340-8000, with 8000nm range, comes closest.) The large remaining "no go" area suggests more interesting possibil- ities. The largest city in northern Siberia I can find on my map is Igarka, at roughly N68 E87. If it has a suitable airport, most of the Arctic is covered, with only a relatively small "no go" area east of the New Siberian Islands. What makes this interesting is that it opens up routes between Southern Asia and the eastern United States and Canada. For example, Igarka (and Alert) allows JFK-HKG with 180 minute ETOPS. At 7011 nm, it's a long flight for a twin, but within the 7186 nm range Boeing claims for the 777-200 IGW, the first of which (a 777-236IGW for British Airways) was rolled out on August 21. JFK-SEL still hits the small remaining "no go" area, but the diversion required to avoid it doesn't appear to be very large. One final question is if the weather is would routinely allow these northern airports to be considered as alternates. Iceland is a key to the North Atlantic, but Keflavik is prone to fog. The weather at Akureyri, on the north coast of Iceland, has a low correlation with Keflavik, so one or the other is likely to be available. Without alternatives for even more remote airports like Alert and Igarka, the probability of weather-induced cancellations might make ETOPS impractical, if not impossible, for routes that almost literally cross the North Pole. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Ted Pleavin" Subject: Re: inoperative Fire Detection Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Alexander Gallery Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:57 Message-ID: thomas smith wrote in article ... > Kamal Hisham wrote: > > I am a pilot on the B747-400, and I am interested in opinions on the > > unavailibity of the fire detection system on one engine. Supposing a > > flight departs with Fire Detector Loop A on engine # 1 inoperative, and, > > inflight, Loop B on the same engine fails. Now, a situation exists > > where there is a total unavailibilty of fire detection on eng # 1. > > Should the flight continue to destination, or should it be landed at the > > nearest suitable airport? Shut down the engine or let it be ? > > What else can be done to take care of the situation? > > This really seems like a Question for the Flight Standards Captain of > your airline, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't already be addressed in > the flight manual for the airplane, or for the airline ..?? I think you will find that the consensus will be to shut down the engine and continue. I have flown the -400 and am now on the -200, and that is the procedure. The engine should be shut down due to lack of fire detection, however once it is shut down there is no need to land at the nearest suitable A/P on a four engine A/C. Hope this helps, Cheers Ted. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com Subject: Re: New Book on Boeing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bio-Rad MicroScience UK Reply-To: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:57 Message-ID: In , vugrad@aol.com (Vugrad) writes: >I have written a new book titled FLYING HIGH: THE STORY OF BOEING AND THE >RISE OF THE JETLINER INDUSTRY, published and distributed nationally by >Atlantic Monthly Press. It is described on the web at >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rodgersmail > In Australia, the movie "Airplane" was released as "Flying High" :?) From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dennis L. Murphy" Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. Reply-To: dlmurphy@neosoft.com Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:57 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > It was an Eastern L-1011, flying from Miami to San Juan. I don't have > the date but I thought it was in the 1970s. (Details appreciated if > anyone can supply them.) Nope, the flight was from Miami to Nassau, and it was in the early '70's. Amazing what a little "o" ring can do on the oil filler tube on those older RR engines. When the aircraft landed only one engine was running ( and that was at minimum power. The flight actually landed on the over (under?) run area of the runway it was assigned to. ATC got a lot of hassle from this incident because of the way they handled the flight, as did the flight crew. They flew the aircraft exceptionally well, they handled the logisitics poorly. They were less than 50 miles from Nassau when they turned back to Miami because "Miami had the maintenance facilities." Some priorities!! From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:57 Message-ID: In article , dlawler@aol.com says... > >> Are ETOPS flights as safe as 3 and 4 engined aircraft, except the obvious >> that they have less engines and hence less chance of a failure! > >One of Boeing's reasons for developing the 777 for ETOPS was that >additional engines do not add a significant margin of safety for the >simple reason that the more engines, the more maintenance that is required >to keep them in peak operating condition. Boeing has argued that the >evidence shows the more engines and aircraft has, the more likely there >will be a problem with one or more of the engines, and that consequently >3+ engine airplanes are no more safe in that respect than 2 engine >airplanes. Of course, there is disagreement in the aviation industry as >to whether the evidence truly shows that to be the case. > >Boeing made the case well enough that we received FAA approval for >delivered ETOPS capability. > Your post might lead some to believe that the case Boeing presented had only to do with the conclusion that 2 engines are no less safe than 3+. There are some very skeptical (and in some cases ignorant) people in some of the aviation related newsgroups. As I recall Boeing had to go through alot of testing to prove reliability and maintainability in order to get the approval. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "F.M." Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:58 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > It was an Eastern L-1011, flying from Miami to San Juan. I don't have > the date but I thought it was in the 1970s. (Details appreciated if > anyone can supply them.) Karl from what I can recall. An apprentice installed the main magnetic oil plugs on the engines without o-rings. I'm not sure if a runup after maintenance was performed was done though. > The single point of failure in this incident was the mechanic -- one > individual improperly serviced all three engines. I believe one of > the operational ETOPS requirements is that the same mechanics cannot > work on both engines. That's why ETOPS is painted clearly on the nose > of all ETOPS-certified aircraft -- the ramp people need to follow > special procedures in servicing an ETOPS aircraft. The company that I work for only requires that another individual certify along side the mech that did the job. This way you've got two pairs of eyes looking at the job instead of one. Also if work is performed on eng. elec/pneu/hyd/oil and/or fuel systems, an engine runup afterward is required. Special procedures for ETOPS are different for each type of a/c . They may be as simple as checking APU oil level or performing several more involved tasks. Regards Francisco Marreiros From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:58 Message-ID: >It was an Eastern L-1011, flying from Miami to San Juan. I don't have >the date but I thought it was in the 1970s. (Details appreciated if >anyone can supply them.) >The single point of failure in this incident was the mechanic -- one >individual improperly serviced all three engines. I believe one of >the operational ETOPS requirements is that the same mechanics cannot >work on both engines. Karl, I don't have the date, but this is what happened: 1) chip detector plug lasts forever on shelf, but requires seal which has a cure date on it and doesn't last forever. 2) initially seals and chip plug are stored separately and seals are put on chip detectors only when they are installed. 3) This takes more time, so the station starts pre assembling the plug and seal for convenience. They are installed both ways. 4) A mechanic who has only ever installed plugs with the rubber already in them gets three that have none, and installs them in all three engines of the subject airplane, about to head out over water. 5) Oil leaks. Since it's common mode, and since their heading away from their maintenance base, they decide it's an indication problem, and press on. They landed hard and short, with only one engine running, the first one that they had shut down, and later re-started. The general ETOPS rule isn't to have different people work on each engine, it's to try not to work on one of them at all before an ETOPS departure, But none of these rules are actually rules, as far as I know. Of course, it doesn't apply to the 1011 anyway because it has three engines, which makes it safer, right? ;-) Our engines have a check valve that keeps the oil inside even if the plug's missing, btw. RR redesigned their's so you couldn't install it without the rubber. -- Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: High airports (was longest flight) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:59 Message-ID: In article graemec@ibm.net "Graeme Cant" writes: > > Finally, AFAIK (and it's not my area) the 757 is the only modern > Western aeroplane certified to takeoff and land at altitudes above > 10000ft. An emergency landing by a 747 could produce a great new > restaurant at Lhasa! > Not my area either B^) but I'm sure I've seen photos of a variety of a/c at Lhasa (maybe not 747). And isn't La Paz in Bolivia above 10,000, and served by a wide variety of a/c? -- Niels From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tukano Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:59 Message-ID: D Snow wrote: > > On 25 Sep 1996, Adam Dobrzycki wrote: > > Air Mauritius wins the award though for the longest ETOPS segment, 175 > minutes from the equal time point, on their segment from mauritius to > perth. > > There is an enroute alternate, the Turks and caicos Islands (I think), > which results in an 886NM 2 hour radius of action, but when the WX is > good then MK can plan 3 HRs, which I think was 1330NM Well, I suggest you mean the USAF Base of Diego Carcia ?! But it is really off course. > I have one of the flight plans for this segment from their Chief Pilot for > B767-300s from back in 1992. As I know, MK only use 767 200 Nevertheless it is an impressive routing. -- mailto:immoeadj@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:59 Message-ID: >> Air Mauritius wins the award though for the longest ETOPS segment, 175 >> minutes from the equal time point, on their segment from mauritius to >> perth. >> >> There is an enroute alternate, the Turks and caicos Islands (I think), >Well, I suggest you mean the USAF Base of Diego Carcia ?! >But it is really off course. The Turks and Caicos Islands are definitely off course -- they're east of Cuba. But Diego Garcia provides only a sliver of coverage along the route from Mauritius to Perth. Most of midpoint would use Cocos Island (aka Keeling Island) as an alternate. In fact, looking at the map, at the most remote portion of the route, the plane is not only more than 175 minutes from the closest alternate, it's more than 180 minutes. The point at which you're exactly 180 minutes from both Diego Garcia and Cocos Island is only a bit north of the direct route from Mauritius to Perth, so presumably they fly to that point and then turn slightly to the south. >> I have one of the flight plans for this segment from their Chief Pilot for >> B767-300s from back in 1992. >As I know, MK only use 767 200 Yep, two of them, no -300s. They also have an L-1011 and several A340-300s (with more on order), and used to fly the 747SP. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Adam Dobrzycki Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:59 Message-ID: graemec@ibm.net (Graeme Cant) wrote: => Finally, AFAIK (and it's not my area) the 757 is the only modern => Western aeroplane certified to takeoff and land at altitudes above => 10000ft. An emergency landing by a 747 could produce a great new => restaurant at Lhasa! In 1994 I flew from EL Alto airport in La Paz, Bolivia (LPB), which is at an altitude of ca. 4,100 m or 13,500 ft. I was on a 757, but there were 727's, 737's and DC-9's on the tarmac. BTW, taking off was an experience. We were going REALLY fast. It took an almost empty 757 with little fuel exactly 49 seconds (I measured) from the moment we started the take-off roll to the moment we were airborne. We proceeded to Santa Cruz (VVI), where the plane was filled with passengers and fuel for a flight to Miami (MIA). Then we took off again - this time it was 26 seconds... Adam -- Adam Dobrzycki AXAF Science Center adam@head-cfa.harvard.edu Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:59 Message-ID: Alan Wong wrote: >Similarly for other southern hemisphere trans-continental routes such as >Auckland to Buenos Aires and Johannesburg/Cape Town to Rio/Sao Paulo/Buenos >Aires. This will have implications for airlines such as Qantas, Air New >Zealand and South African Airways when purchasing aircraft eg A340 vs 777X. There's very little traffic AKL/SYD to S. America, certainly not enough to affect aircraft purchasing decisions; certainly not enough to justify purchase of a completely new aircraft type (Air NZ is very much a Boeing shop). There's also too little traffic to justify direct flights; the usual approach to serving S. America is by island hopping, which serves the islands as well. Typically this is done by meeting Chilean flights (which have go via Easter Is) at Papeete. Last time I passed through PPT the Chilean flight was being served by a 707; I believe this has since been replaced by a 767, but you get the idea as to just how popular this route isn't. In short, if you've got an ETOPS 767, you can serve S. Pacific to S. American routes and live with island hopping. You'd need a 747-400 or similar range aircraft to do the route non-stop, and there just isn't the traffic to justify it. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Sat Oct 12 02:35:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Erico Oller Westerberg Subject: Longesst flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Appelberg Publications Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:59 Message-ID: Long time ago (1975?) Aerolineas Argentinas advertised it was pioneering passanger flights over the South Pole. Maybe it is wrong, but I recall there were flights from Buenos Aires to Tokyo. I can't remember if these flights had a stop at Auckland, NZ. I thought of this reading the contribution about Quantas and Afghanistan. How far from any suitable airport were this Aerolineas Argentinas' planes allowed to flight? Erico Oller Westerberg Appelberg Publications Stockholm Sweden From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Longesst flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:00 Message-ID: >Long time ago (1975?) Aerolineas Argentinas advertised it was pioneering >passanger flights over the South Pole. Maybe it is wrong, but I recall >there were flights from Buenos Aires to Tokyo. I can't remember if these >flights had a stop at Auckland, NZ. EZE-NRT non-stop is 9883nm, well beyond the range of any airliner in service today, much less twenty years ago. Even going via AKL, they would have to go pretty far out of their way to cross the South Pole -- neither the non-stop nor the one-stop route even cross over Antarctica much less the pole. >How far from any suitable airport were this Aerolineas >Argentinas' planes allowed to flight? In 1975, ETOPS didn't exist, so they would have to have used a three- or four-engined airliner, which would have been allowed to go anywhere they wanted without regard to distance from an alternate airport. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: ATR 72 EMR evacuation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:00 Message-ID: In article , Tukano writes: >Imagine an ATR 72 to be evacuated urgently on the ground: We suppose an >a (right) engine Fire, so that everybody is rushing to the back of the >a/c. Will the craft's rear fall on the ground (tailscrape) due to the >mass of people (including Cockpit crew) rushing to the back? No. The rear airstair door is NOT the only exit on the left side of the aircraft. There are forward and rear emergency exits on both sides of the passenger cabin. (Four passenger emergency exits total.) The Cockpit crew exits through a hatch in the roof of the cockpit. >In normal >OPS there is the necessity to fix a stick under the fuselage below the >rear doors to avoid the described effect when boarding/ disembarking the >a/c. This is not uncommon. The Saab 340 has a tail stand too. The B727 must have the airstair down and locked during normal embarking/disembarking to act as a tail stand. In cargo operations, a tail stand is also added to the B727-200 Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ----------------------------- Props are for boats! ----------------------------- From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dave English Subject: Re: ATR 72 EMR evacuation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Tidy Reply-To: english@skygod.com Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:00 Message-ID: Tukano wrote: > Imagine an ATR 72 to be evacuated urgently on the ground: We suppose an > a (right) engine Fire, so that everybody is rushing to the back of the > a/c. Will the craft's rear fall on the ground (tailscrape) due to the > mass of people (including Cockpit crew) rushing to the back? Yes, very likely if everybody rushed to the back. An orderly evac should not be a problem however, and if people really want to get out a large number would use the emergency exits at the front of the passenger cabin, row 1. > In normal > OPS there is the necessity to fix a stick under the fuselage below the > rear doors to avoid the described effect when boarding/ disembarking Yes, but only as a back up in case normal loading/boarding procedures are not followed and a plane tilts onto it's tail. -- Dave. (ATR O'Hare) From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rparpatt@uniserve.com (Thundercraft) Subject: Re: Air Canada DC-9s questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UNIServe Online Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:00 Message-ID: In article , cpa1@penn.com says... > >This has almost nothing to do with your question, other that about Air >Canada DC-9s. On a sightseeing trip to O'Hare last Friday I spotted an Air >Canada "Nine" ready for immediate departure (an old one, I'd presume, since >it was in old colors and looked rather short; my guess is a -10 or -30). I >peered down the jetway, which was different from all the other jetways at >O'Hare -- it was specially designed with "Air Canada and a maple leaf on >the side and had small rectangular windows on the side. The angle of the >jetway downward was very steep: something like 20 degrees, rather than the >gentle slope of most jetways. My guess is that the gate was meant for >larger aircraft (prob. A320s) which are taller, thus having their doors >higher off the ground (the DC-9 is very low to the ground). Any other >guesses? > Sounds to me like you were looking at a Canadair CL-65, not a DC-9. On checking Air Canada's web site (www.aircanada.ca) you will see the a/c type CRJ (Canadair Regional Jet) as well as A320 and DC9 on the Toronto YYZ to Chicago flt schedule. The CL-65 seats 50, so it would look like an old DC9-10, except that it sits closer to the ground. I believe that the CL-65 has its roots in the Canadair Challenger 601 business jet. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tjj@pionet.net (TJ) Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CMDS News machine Reply-To: tjj%pionet.net.or.tjj@aol.com Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:00 Message-ID: >If there are any 737 CA's/FO's out there, how about looking in >the manual and see if the gear has a swiveling capability? 3 degrees of caster for the auto-landings (the autopilot is two axis only and lands in a crab). TJJ From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Ted Pleavin" Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Alexander Gallery Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:01 Message-ID: Gary S. James wrote in article ... > In mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) > >In article , ddand@aol.com > (DDAnd) > >writes: > I've been looking at them more closely lately and they are not always > in the same direction nor are they weathercocking into the prevailing > wind. If there are any 737 CA's/FO's out there, how about looking in > the manual and see if the gear has a swiveling capability? Did anyone ask if the taxi way was flat or concave. Maybe it's the gear trying to keep up to the nose gear. I do know the 747 is hard to keep on the center line of a concave taxi way because it wants to roll off either side. Cheers Ted. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brown@asiaonline.net Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Asia On-Line Limited, Hong Kong. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:01 Message-ID: > Jim Messina wrote: > >>Easy one. They are taxiing out with only one engine running to save fuel. Come-on all you aircraft designers. For my pennyworth: A capt answered my comments on the bent 737 problem with the explanation that the nosewheels are not mounted on the aircraft fuselage centre-line. This explanation should be easy to check! From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ecla@world.std.com (alain arnaud) Subject: Over wing fuel leak Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:01 Message-ID: Last week I was on a UA757 LAX to BOS. About 90mn in the flight we got diverted into Denver due to an over the wing fuel leak. The fuel cap seal was defective and fuel was leaking from the tank. A passenger noticed that there was a liquid streaming from the trailing edge of the wing, he notified the flight attendent, and after separate inspection by the crew the captain decided to divert. We were met on the runway by multiple fire engines and other vehicles. We stopped at the end of the taxiway for an inspection before heading to the gate. The repair took about 30mn and then we were back on our way. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Service Bulletins for Part 25 Aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:01 Message-ID: Obscure question: What regulates the issuance and control of Service Bulletins for Part 25 aircraft in Part 121 service? Brian From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: DC-9/MD-80 Type Certificate Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:01 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > >Jennings Heilig wrote: >>Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure that all the MD-80/90 aircraft have the same type >>> certificate as the DC-9. Could you double check your references? > >> Nope, Karl is correct. McDD got a new type certificate for the >>MD-88, and I believe that somehow they got it to cover the MD-80/81/ >>82/83/87 as well ... >>... If you look at the >>airworthiness certificate on the front bulkhead sometime you'll see >>what it's listed as... All of DL's are listed as TYPE: MD-88 > >While the FAA was once very retentive about type designations (see >past discussions about why the L-1011-385-1-14 has such a cumbersome >moniker), I thought they eased up and let MD use MD-88 as the official >designation, without forcing a new TC just for a name change. > >The MD-90, as I heard it, was the first of the DC-9 series to have a >completely new type certificate. I looked thru http://www.faa.gov but >couldn't find anything relevant, unfortunately. They did not receive new type certificates. The MD-90 was added as a new model to the existing type certificate. Also, nothing has eased up for as long as I can remember. There are numurous type certificates with multiple model designations on them, many of which have existed for quite a long time. In response to another post, the airworthiness certificate diplayed in the aircraft has little to do do with what models are listed on a Type Certificate and its associated Type Certificate Data Sheet. The only requirement is the model designation is shown using the same designation as the TC and TCDS. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re[2]: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:01 Message-ID: DLawler (dlawler@aol.com) wrote: > to keep them in peak operating condition. Boeing has argued that the > evidence shows the more engines and aircraft has, the more likely there > will be a problem with one or more of the engines, and that consequently > 3+ engine airplanes are no more safe in that respect than 2 engine > airplanes. Seems to me the question is one of what is being optimized...safety or aircraft availability. If one wants to have fewer possible failure points reduce redundancy...but if we'd like to keep the aircraft aloft when failures occur, redundancy seems appealing...n'est pas? From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Tiny SST (was: SST development) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:02 Message-ID: In article , Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: >In article , >Don Stokes wrote: >> >>Question: would a small SST, say 20 seats plus crew, say the size of a >>(shudder) metroliner, travelling at Mach 2 at 55,000+ ft, produce enough >>of a sonic boom at ground level to prevent overflying populated areas? > >In a word, yes. Dang! 8-) >There are several caveats to that statement. One, no weird configurations >(there are some data that suggest that the skewed wing configurations can >be designed to fly very quietly). Two, no advancement in wing technology >from four years ago. Does this imply that there has been such an advancement in wing technology? (He says in the light of the fact Boeing and others are toying with SST concepts again -- I never thought I'd see a photo of a TU144 with Boeing and MDD logos on it..) There's some interesting work on sonic boom reduction going on at Dryden, using SR71s as testbeds, with other aircraft as instrument platforms at various distances away from the test aircraft, to determine how the various parts of the sonic boom change as they propagate away from the aircraft. See http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1996/HTML/H-DRC-95-32/index.html and related links. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Tucker Subject: Re: Back on the Named Engines thread... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: achilles.net Reply-To: ktucker@achilles.net Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:02 Message-ID: Graham Glen wrote: >Perhaps someone at Rolls-Royce can tell us why RR only named one engine >after a mountain? As far as I'm aware, the Olympus was the only engine >RR named thus. Otherwise we'd have the Rolls-Royce Everest, K-2 (?), >Erebus (not a bad name...), Kilimanjaro, Fuji (maybe not), etc. Perhaps >it's because England doesn't have any memorable mountain names? Who wants to be pedantic but isn't the Bristol Siddeley theme more to do with Greek gods rather than mountains? Eg. Pegasus (Harrier AV-8 et al) -- Keith Tucker; ktucker@achilles.net who would rather be boating ! From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ee3carb@ee.edinburgh.ac.uk (C.A.R.Beveridge \(Colin\)) Subject: Re: Back on the Named Engines thread... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Electrical Engineering Department, University of Edinburgh Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:02 Message-ID: In article , "J. Heilig" writes: |> Looking through some reference material on the Avro Vulcan bomber |> recently, I stumbled across something that I already knew, but didn't |> think about during the recent "engine names" thread. |> |> Perhaps someone at Rolls-Royce can tell us why RR only named one engine |> after a mountain? As far as I'm aware, the Olympus was the only engine |> RR named thus. Otherwise we'd have the Rolls-Royce Everest, K-2 (?), |> Erebus (not a bad name...), Kilimanjaro, Fuji (maybe not), etc. Perhaps |> it's because England doesn't have any memorable mountain names? You forget that Rolls-Royce is a British company and we have several memorable mountain names, I can think of Ben Nevis for one. So that's not the reason. Also I don't believe that Olympus is just a mountain name, it also suggests power and strength, and durability. Other mountain names such as Everest suggest danger etc and would not be such good marketing choices. -- Colin A R Beveridge Microelectronic Engineering The University of Edinburgh United Kingdom http://www.ed.ac.uk From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Back on the Named Engines thread... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:02 Message-ID: Graeme Cant wrote: > > Bristol gave all their engines names from classical Greek - Hercules > (no, not Poirot), Centaurus, Perseus, Mercury, Taurus, etc. for > piston engines and Theseus, Proteus (world's most widely travelled ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > icemaker) Orion, Orpheus, Olympus, etc. for turbines. ^^^^^^^^ That just BEGS for an explanation :-) The Proteus is the Britannia engine, correct? Ya can't just toss out a wisecrack like that and leave us hangin'... -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chas@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Charles Spencer) Subject: Re: Back on the Named Engines thread... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Edinburgh University Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:02 Message-ID: "J. Heilig" writes: >Looking through some reference material on the Avro Vulcan bomber >recently, I stumbled across something that I already knew, but didn't >think about during the recent "engine names" thread. >Perhaps someone at Rolls-Royce can tell us why RR only named one engine >after a mountain? As far as I'm aware, the Olympus was the only engine >RR named thus. Otherwise we'd have the Rolls-Royce Everest, K-2 (?), >Erebus (not a bad name...), Kilimanjaro, Fuji (maybe not), etc. Perhaps >it's because England doesn't have any memorable mountain names? I might be able to suggest an answer to this. The Olympus engine was originally developed by Bristol Siddeley (I might be wrong in the name), and only taken over by Rolls-Royce when the company was taken over (again, I'm not sure of the history). The Proteus was a turboprop engine, which powered the Britannia airliner, so there was probably a Greek mythology thread being followed, Chas -- Chas Spencer, User Support, Edinburgh University Computing Service Why not read the Bible Chapter of the Week? The URL is http://www.ed.ac.uk/~chas/bible/ From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Adam Henderson Subject: Re: Back on the Named Engines thread... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: N/A Reply-To: ahenders@britsoft.co.uk Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:03 Message-ID: >Perhaps someone at Rolls-Royce can tell us why RR only named one engine >after a mountain? As far as I'm aware, the Olympus was the only engine >RR named thus. Otherwise we'd have the Rolls-Royce Everest, K-2 (?), >Erebus (not a bad name...), Kilimanjaro, Fuji (maybe not), etc. Perhaps >it's because England doesn't have any memorable mountain names? The Harrier has a Pegasus engine, so I believe that RR Millitary engines had a Greek theme not a mountain theme. Olympus engines are also found in Concorde and were in the U.K. variant of the F.4 Phantom. Obviously RR now name their civil engines after rivers... Adam From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bo247@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:03 Message-ID: How right you are. See Martinair 767 and three 757 in short order! From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:03 Message-ID: >How right you are. See Martinair 767 and three 757 in short order! I assume you mean to suggest that the Martinair incident and the three 757 crashes all show that twins are less safe than airliners with more than two engines. If so, how do you substantiate that? The Martinair 767 involved a bizarre failure of the electronic flight instruments. The same sort of failure could just as easily happen to the four-engined 747-400 or A340, which have even more sophisticated flight decks. The final report on the American 757 crash at Cali says pilot error was the primary cause, though conflicting information in the printed charts versus the FMS were a major contributor. Again, this has no correlation whatsoever with the number of engines on the aircraft. The Dominican Alas (Birgenair) 757 which crashed near Puerto Plata went down due to a plugged airpseed sensor and failure of the pilots to recognize and properly respond to the problem, compounded by less than adequate documention of the problem and resolution in the flight manual. A single-engined Cessna 172 or an eight-engined B-52 could suffer the same problem. The circumstances of the AeroPeru 757 crash are shrouded in over 500 ft of water and an incredible outpouring of misinformation from the authorities, moreso than usual. However, if any of the descriptions can be even slightly trusted, aspects of it sound vaguely reminiscent of both the Martinair 767 incident and the Dominican 757 crash. Once again, the number of engines appears to have nothing to do with the crash. ETOPS may be more or less safe than long flights with three- or more engined planes, but the cases you cite provide no evidence one way or the other. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: djs@onramp.net (Donald J. Shelton) Subject: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OnRamp Technologies; ISP; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:03 Message-ID: I just posted a photo of a Pan Am 747SP with five engines on my Web page, http://rampages.onramp.net/~djs. don Donald J. Shelton +-+ djs@onramp.net +-+ K5VCZ +-+ Garland, TX visit my WebSite http://rampages.onramp.net/~djs Home of USS Ray (SSN-653), USS Telfair (APA-210) SS United States and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Pages. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rstevens@worldsite.net (Ryan Michael Stevens) Subject: Re: Delta 767 Engine Shutdown LAX-CVG Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Worldsite Networks, Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:03 Message-ID: In article , "David G. Davidson" wrote: >Does anyone recall the date of the Delta 767 incident where both engines >were shutdown? Seems it was the summer of 1987, but am looking for the >exact date. Check this site out. It looks like every aviation incident that the NTSB investigates, no matter how minor, is included here. The URL is http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/months.htm. An amazing resource, to say the least. Best regards, Ryan From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Innes Subject: Canadian Airlines wins YVR to HKG via Russia-China Routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:03 Message-ID: Just a little update on longrange nonstoppers from North America. Starting Oct01/96, Canadian Airlines will inaugurate flights from YVR-HKG via new Russia/China route. Expected time savings of upto 1.5 hours in winter winds conditions. Excerpts from Friday's Globe and Mail; Canada has negotiated new international air rights that will allow Canadian airlines to fly over large parts of China and Russia previously banned to Western commercial aircraft, government and airline experts say. Using the new routes, airlines leaving Vancouver will be able to cut across the middle of China on their way to Hong Kong, and will soon be allowed to fly directly to New Delhi on one tank of jet fuel--in 12 hours, down from the current 20 hours... Most flights to Hong Kong must now skirt Russian and Chinese territory, forcing them to take a circuitous route over the Pacific Ocean and Taiwan, said Michael Tretheway, special adviser to the president of the Vancouver International Airport Authority... The first carrier to take advantage of the new agreement is Calgary-based Canadian Airlines International Ltd., which plans to fly across the middle of China starting next Wednesday... A spokesman for the federal Department of Foreign Affairs said Ottawa paved the way for the agreement but Canadian Airlines went ahead and negotiated the actual terms... Captain Robert Weatherly, vice-president of Canadian's Flight Operations at the Vancouver head office, said his company's DC-10-30ER's and Boeing 747-400 airplanes will cut across China well to the west of Shanghai en route to Hong Kong. The new route will save Canadian 45 minutes and 5.4 tonnes of jet fuel on every flight between Vancouver and Hong Kong. More important, the shorter route will allow the airline to carry an extra 5.4 tonnes of cargo on every trip, potentially worth millions of dollars in extra revenue in a year... Capt. Weatherly said Canada has been trying to gain Chinese overfly rights since 1974. It won partial permission to fly to Beijing in April, 1995, but has been prohibited from flying over central China until now. Airlines bound for Japan have been allowed to fly over parts of Russia for several years. But broader rights were considered unthinkable until after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mvelure@continet.com (Matthew Velure) Subject: Dornier 328 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:04 Message-ID: Seattle based Horizon Air has decided to replace the Dornier 328 with the Dash-8 reportedly due to maintenance unreliability. I myself as a passenger have had problems with the 328 (flight cancellation due to maintenance). Any other info anyone might have with other airlines having trouble with the 328, or any more info on Horizon? From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: egotrip@lesol1.dseg.ti.com (Mike Neus) Subject: Re: Why not a full length upper deck on a 747-600X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Texas Instruments Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:04 Message-ID: In article , Tomas Stephanson said... > >I saw some pictures on the new proposed 747-600X and saw that the >upperdeck did not extend the whole length of the aircraft compared >to the Airbus 3XX. > >Why does the 747 have a upper deck in the first place? Was it >for futre expansion? > >Why does Boeing not want to extend the upperdeck the full length of >the aircraft, is it not economical, aerodynamic, weight penalty? The 747 was originally designed as a cargo plane. Once you understand this, the shape of the 747 is logical. To maximize cargo space and allow the nose of the plane to open for fast loading/unloading, the best place for the cockpit is on top of the fuseloge, hence the upper deck. I'm not sure why the deck is as long as it is. One could speculate it was for aerodynamics (it makes sence to make the back of the cockpit a gental slope for this reason alone) or somebody invisioned it as carrying a small number of passengers who wanted to go with the cargo, or maybe it even would hold smaller cargo. Ultimately though, the space was obviously used for passengers and in fact the hump on the original 747-100 is relatively short, while the hump on the higher capacity -400 is much longer. The only practicle reason I can think of not to extend it all the way back is the entire back end of the 747 might have to be redesigned for extra support and the tail moved up to get it out of the turbulence, etc. Obviously, this would be quite an expense. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: young@ftest.gulfaero.com (Jim Young) Subject: Re: Why not a full length upper deck on a 747-600X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:04 Message-ID: In article Tomas Stephanson, tomas@medialab.ericsson.se writes: >Why does Boeing not want to extend the upperdeck the full length of >the aircraft, is it not economical, aerodynamic, weight penalty? The really big reason is aerodynamics. A little things called area rule (look it up in any basic aero book or email me if you want an explanation) plays a big part in the drag of an airplane. When Boeing originally streched the 747-200 to the longer upper deck on the -300, the drag of the airplane actually went down, even though there was more fuselage. So I doubt if you will see the upper deck on any 747 derivative reaching much further aft than the leading edge of the wing. ______________________________________________________________ Jim Young 912-965-5243 Fax 912-965-4772 Gulfstream Aerospace G-V and G-IV Flight Test Engineering Savannah, GA "Speed is Life - FlyFast" From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Why not a full length upper deck on a 747-600X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:04 Message-ID: In article , tomas@medialab.ericsson.se (Tomas Stephanson) wrote: > I saw some pictures on the new proposed 747-600X and saw that the > upperdeck did not extend the whole length of the aircraft compared > to the Airbus 3XX. > Why does the 747 have a upper deck in the first place? Was it > for futre expansion? The 747 was intended from the outset to be a freighter, with its passenger role being taken over by SSTs. So the flight deck was placed above the main deck to facilitate loading large items through the nose. > Why does Boeing not want to extend the upperdeck the full length of > the aircraft, is it not economical, aerodynamic, weight penalty? Extending the upper deck all the way to the tail would require a complete aerodynamic redesign of the tail surfaces. Extending the 747's upper deck and doing nothing else would cause directional stability problems. Plus, our studies have shown that the deck-and-a-half arrangement is the best way to accomodate both passengers and freight. A full double deck arrangement like the proposed A-3XX is better for passengers only, but not as good as a deck-and-a-half for passengers and revenue freight. And revenue freight often makes more money for the airline than the passengers sitting on floor above it... C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Subject: Re: Why not a full length upper deck on a 747-600X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:04 Message-ID: Boeing has looked at the full-upper deck 747 as well as a tri-deck version (referred to as the 787 and the 7-"BIG"-7). Air Bus, as I recall, is more interested in the tri-deck version and have their own designs. As far as I know, we have never considered actually jointly _developing_ (i.e. building) these variants with Air Bus, but we did do some joint business studies to see if anyone would be interested in aircraft this big. One of the main problems with either of these designs is that without changes in passenger/cargo loading, it can take forever to load and unload them due to their size. A few airlines do seem interested in this but the current decision is to go for a more incremental expansion of capacity. - David Lawler formerly of Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Experimental Flight Test now Boeing Defense and Space Group From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: karlk9@aol.com (KarlK9) Subject: Re: 747-400 Magnetic Detectors Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: karlk9@aol.com (KarlK9) Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:04 Message-ID: Full alignment (vesres a "quick align") takes only 10 minutes - so even in a quick turn operation there is plenty of time. From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:05 Message-ID: For an excellent discussion of aircraft diesel powerplants, see Bill Gunston's book "The Development of Piston Aero Engines" (ISBN 1-85260-385-2). He makes an excellent case for the modern use of diesel engines in aircraft. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Oct 12 02:36:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shahid siddiqi Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: as&m Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:05 Message-ID: Michael Khan x2717 A.326 mbp/fcsd/oad wrote: > > mholt@freenet.vcu.edu wrote: > > > I beleive it was a few models of the Ju-88 which > > were diesel powered. > > Perhaps. But the Ju *86*, which existed as a pre-war civil transport, > and it's later bomber version, were diesel-powered. They had endless > problems with the diesel engines used (performance/reliability). I think by the reliability standards of that day the JU-86 Jumo 205 powered airplanes were reasonably reliable. Remember they were flying from Liboa to Rio De Jenero From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: acgales@aol.com (Acgales) Subject: Indicated airspeed increase near clouds Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: acgales@aol.com (Acgales) Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:05 Message-ID: I'm a new boy to turboprops; I have been warned about, and observed, roughly a 10 knot increase in IAS when descending in an ATR-42 as it approaches clouds. Does anybody have an explanation for this phenomenon? Thanks Tony Gales acgales@aol.com From kls Sat Oct 12 02:36:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Messina Subject: DC-10 Modifications after ORD Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:36:05 Message-ID: I read the long NTSB report posted here two months ago about the AA DC-10 crash at O'Hare years ago. I am still uncertain what modifications were done to the DC-10 fleet as a result. Can someone summarize them. Thanks Jim Messina From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:27 Message-ID: Jim Messina wrote: >Jos Gielen wrote: >> ALL 737's do it, also the ones I know off that don't taxi single >> engine. On a a twin engine jet that is stupid by the way, unless your >> pretty light and looking at long delays on the taxitrack ... >That's what I said but is hardly stupid to many operators who use this >method quite routinely. In light of this discussion, I thought the following bit from an AP article on Delta Express was interesting: Delta Express expects to save money in other ways, such as taxiing into gates using only the left engine, so that baggage can be unloaded from the right side and ensure a quick turnaround for the next takeoff. Not quite the same circumstances as taxiing out to the runway for departure (with the added weight of fuel for the flight), but clearly Delta doesn't think it's stupid to taxi on one engine. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Kearney Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ireland On-Line Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:28 Message-ID: On 12 Oct 1996, Donald J. Shelton wrote: > I just posted a photo of a Pan Am 747SP with five engines on my Web > page, http://rampages.onramp.net/~djs. > For those who may be about to ask "Why 5 Engines?".... The 747 Is used to ferry spare engines around the world by attaching them inboard on the Left Wing between the Normal inboard engine and the wing root. It's a "funny" sight to see but it's another reason why MR. Boeing has soo many 747's flying - Damn Good Aircraft. Regards to All From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:28 Message-ID: >The 747 Is used to ferry spare engines around the world by attaching them >inboard on the Left Wing between the Normal inboard engine and the >wing root. >It's a "funny" sight to see but it's another reason why MR. Boeing >has soo many 747's flying - Damn Good Aircraft. While I think the 747 is a great airplane, the ability to ferry a spare engine is hardly unique to the 747 or even Boeing. The 707, DC-8, and DC-10 were all certified for the same capability. The L-1011 reportedly was not, but I've seen a picture of an L-1011 carrying a spare, so maybe they certified it later. There were several threads on this subject back in 1993; go to http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives-search.html and search for "spare and engine" to see them. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:28 Message-ID: Several jets had the ability to ferry an engine to an out of the way spot. The early 747 could do it and I believe the L1011 could as well. There could be others. This would likely have been a built in option when the plane was built, with the hard points built into the wing from the beginning. But what a fuel guzzler if used. John Gezelius Alexandria, VA From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes 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: 12 Oct 96 21:34:28 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Mezei writes: >Is there a clear definition of what facilities are required on the >ground to make a legal emergency landing strip for ETOPS consideration? To expand that.... What kind of r/w length are needed for: 1) full-load takeoff vs 2) emergency landing, say w/ 50% fuel vs 3) stripped down, empty, minimum everything takeoff. ? Now, each airframe will be different, but is there some approx. ratio to them? My point is obvious -- there have to be fields too short to 'support' a given a/c, but still viable ETOPS alternates, if you're willing to shuttle the px out on 737's.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: DC-10 Modifications after ORD Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:29 Message-ID: On 12 Oct 1996, Jim Messina wrote: > I read the long NTSB report posted here two months ago about the AA DC-10 > crash at O'Hare years ago. I am still uncertain what modifications were > done to the DC-10 fleet as a result. Can someone summarize them. Thanks Jim, Years ago I asked almost the same question of a former MD engineer who taught my DC-10 systems ground school. I don't remember everything he said, but he did say that one of the main changes was in how the leading edge devices are "locked" into position. I put quotes around the word locked, above, because unlike most (all?) Boeing jets, which indeed use a mechanical locking mechanism which cannot be unlocked in the absence of hydraulic pressure, the DC-10 has always used *hydraulic* locking of LED's. In the American accident, a rupture of the main hydraulic lines to the LED's in the left wing caused the devices to retract. So, the design was modified such that the LED's were truly locked after extension, right? According to my source, no: The *hydraulic* locking was only moved closer to the actuating cylinders. The LED's (according to my instructor) could still suffer an unwanted retraction under certain circumstances. We also discussed the vulnerability of the three hydraulic systems, with no control-cable backup, including their common routing through the tail section. This gentlemen as much as predicted the UAL accident at Souix City (which was to happen several years after our discussion). We *both* thought that the result of such a complete hydraulic failure would be a deep, $100-million hole in the ground, and in this regard - fortunately for Al Haines and his crew and passengers - we were wrong. Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:29 Message-ID: Scott Odle wrote: > There are some > very skeptical (and in some cases ignorant) people in some of the aviation > related newsgroups. As I recall Boeing had to go through alot of testing to > prove reliability and maintainability in order to get the approval. I have never had problems or fears about twin engine flights over ocean. I recall my first flight to AKL from HNL in a 767, well before I learned about ETOPS, and never even thought about a twin jet being "more dangerous" than one with more engines. Perhaps my age/background resulted in my not knowing about some of the dangers. Question: Have there been historical grounds for fearing twin engined planes over the ocean ? (eg: was there a time when JET engines often failed during flight ?) Or are these fears purely a result of the fear of flying by some ? From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:29 Message-ID: >Question: Have there been historical grounds for fearing twin engined >planes over the ocean ? (eg: was there a time when JET engines often >failed during flight ?) Prior to the development of ETOPS in the late 1970s and 1980s (while ETOPS appeared for the North Atlantic in the 19080s, the US pioneered the idea in the 1970s with a 75 minute rule time for the Caribbean), ICAO rules required an aircraft to be able to limp home with *two* failed engines. This even precluded trijets operating at high weights, never mind twins. Much of this conservatism was based on piston engines, which were much less reliable than any sort of turbine. The reliability of jets has increased greatly over the years, but I suspect they're more likely to fail at startup or on takeoff rather than during cruise, so ETOPS might have been feasible even in the 1960s. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:29 Message-ID: Fr what it's worth, the US Air Force will be buying some 757 a/c to replace the aging VC-137 a/c in the Andrews AFB fleet. They will be used all over the world and will have to be ETOPS qualified. Given the nature of the fleet, just about anyone in high level gov't service could find themselves aboard. Anyone who currrently gets a 707 would get a 757. Don't know the delivery date yet. John Gezelius Alexandria, VA From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Subject: Re: Crew Lock-out Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:29 Message-ID: Haven't heard that, but once on WN the opposite happened. We were in PHX and the crew slammed the cockpit door and a panel fell off the door, leaving ahole in the door. That resulted in an insecure cockpit (an FAA no-no) and MNX had to come in and fix it. Took over an hour and I wound up missing a connection and spent the night in the El Paso airport! John Gezelius Alexandria, VA From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Airline@Flash.Net (Eric Olesen) Subject: Re: flight AA155 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Airline Historical Archives Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:30 Message-ID: "R.Schmidt" wrote: >On December 16th, 1972(!) I was on flight AA155 (JFK-IAD). >Unfortunately, it was in that period that I was not yet interested in >civil aviation. Anyway, is it possible to find out the registation of >the aircraft of that very flight? No. Records don't go that far back.... In general, 10 years is the max for flight records with the carriers. ATC wouldn't have it either. Its still possible to find out the type of equipment -- many of the better transportation libraries and some university libraries have the OAG going back that far. E | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives is now the Website | airline@flash.net | version of the New Eastern Airlines.... | Fort Worth, Tx | NEW URL http://www.flash.net/~airline/aha.html | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:30 Message-ID: In article , 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist writes >>At flight test, they put locking pins in the retraction mechanism after >>landing and before towing. > > To follow up a note I sent earlier, I found someone who knew more >about gear pins, who said that the airlines consistently remove the gear >pins the first thing after delivery and toss them. The lock mechanisms are >overcenter backed by beefy springs, so something drastic must have been >done wrong. Charlie; I work for British Airways and I currently fly Boeing 747 aircraft. When the aircraft are presented for each flight, there are no undercarriage pins fitted as routine, apart from the nose gear steering bypass pin. As far as I am aware, the only time we fit the pins is when guys have to carry out maintenance in the wheel well area, or on the gear itself. That would make a lot more sense than throwing them away. -- Pete Finlay Boeing 747 S/E/O British Airways LGW From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Kearney Subject: Re: Undercarriage retraction on the ground Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ireland On-Line Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:30 Message-ID: > >At flight test, they put locking pins in the retraction mechanism after > >landing and before towing. > > To follow up a note I sent earlier, I found someone who knew more > about gear pins, who said that the airlines consistently remove the gear > pins the first thing after delivery and toss them. The lock mechanisms are > overcenter backed by beefy springs, so something drastic must have been > done wrong. > Pins are not thrown away , they cost alot of money to replace ! Pins are required for towing/not-in-use time/during hangar visits. On 747 the Nose wheel pin is normally on the end of a bar about 5 feet long. This bar+pin plus the steering locking pin are withdrawn during pushback and are the items you will see the push-back-engineer holding up to the aircrew as part of the see-out procedure. During hangar vists the pins are the first things to be put in to inhibit gear movement and when theyre removed for function checks the personnel around the aircraft are made aware of this for safety reasons. In real life , if an aicraft is pushed back with steering lock pin in place then the push/tow-bar should break first. For a nose-wheel to collapse something physically went wrong. And who ever was in the cockpit when it happened would have been brought out of the collapsed aircraft as if he/she'd just seen a ghost ( or two ) Regards to all From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Stuart Law" Subject: Re: Service Bulletins for Part 25 Aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stuart W. Law Co Reply-To: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:30 Message-ID: Brian A. Reynolds wrote in article ... > What regulates the issuance and control > of Service Bulletins for Part 25 aircraft in Part 121 service? This may be hard to believe, but maintenance manuals and especially underlying service bulletins are generally not regulated by the FAA. The regulations require the existance of Continued Airworthiness Instructions and the delivery of certain data to the operator (who remains responsible for continued airworthiness). Changes to FAA approved data (limitations, cycle life, airworthiness directive requirements or procedures) must be FAA approved. Thus a SB included in an AD gets special consideration. Also, it is often highly desirable to assure the operator that the resulting configuration after incorporating a SB is indeed "FAA approved", resulting in portions of a SB having FAA Approved markings. The definitive work is AC 20-114 - MANUFACTURERS' SERVICE DOCUMENTS. Related FAR's (from the AC's list) include: FAR 21.31, 21.93, 21.95, 21.97, 21.99, 21.113, 21.289, 21.463, 43.13(a) and (b), 43.3(a), 43.7, 43.17, 65.95, 91.163(b), 121.379, 127.140, 135.437, and 145.51. -- Stuart Law stuart@slaw.com From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pboswell@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Peter Boswell) Subject: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:30 Message-ID: I just finished reading Stephen Frederick's "Unheeded Warning: the inside story of American Eagle Flight 4184," and was wondering if the French manufacturer of the ATR-42 and ATR-72, Aerospatiale, is part of the consortium which builds the Airbus series? Frederick's analysis of Aerospatiale's continued denials of problems with the ATR's performance in icing conditions is chilling enough to persuade me never to set foot in an ATR. If the same company is connected with the Airbus, I would be very cautious about travelling again in one of those, too. Peter Boswell ----------------------------------- Dr. Peter G. Boswell Department of Political Science Memorial University of Newfoundland From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:31 Message-ID: >I ... was wondering if the French manufacturer of the ATR-42 and >ATR-72, Aerospatiale, is part of the consortium which builds the >Airbus series? ATR (Avions Transports Regionalle) aircraft are built by a consortium of France's Aerospatiale and Italy's Alenia, each of which own 50% of the enterprise. The same Aerospatiale holds a 37.9% share of the Airbus Industrie consortium. (Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus also holds 37.9% while British Aerospace holds 20% and Spain's CASA the remaining 4.2%.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:31 Message-ID: In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > In article faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > > >There aren't any risks, any more than there are on any flight in a modern > >commercial jetliner. > > There are more risks, hence the operating and regulatory requirement imposing > extraordinary crew, airframe, maintenance, and dispatch procedures for ETOPS > operations. The original question was is an ETOPS flight riskier than a flight on a three or four engine airplane? The answer is still no, because whatever additional risk there may have been because of the fact there are only two engines has been eliminated by the reliability of today's equipment, the extra redundancy of the ETOPS systems, and the stricter maintnenance standards for an ETOPS airline. > I'd still like to see whether these fabled "safety analyses" "proving" that > twin operations are as good as others take into account the recent history > involving volcanic dust ingestion. In each case, *multiple* engines were > shut down, and *multiple* engines and systems suffered severe damage. If > it's a question of eeking out every last bit of thrust, I'd much rather > be in a 747 (or even an A340) for transpacific travel. First, the dust incidents. You've proved my point. ALL the engines on the four engine planes shut down, and ALL of them were damaged to some degree, so at that point it didn't make much difference how many there were. Three and four engine airplanes don't have three or four engines simply as a margin of safety, they have three or four engines so they can get off the ground and STILL MEET the required margins of safety. The SAME margins of safety that apply to twin engine airplanes, by the way. If a twin loses one engine on takeoff, its remaining engine has to provide sufficient power to safely continue the takeoff. That's the rule. Ride in a 757 sometime and you'll experience the result of having to have engines that are capable of continuing a takeoff after an engine failure. The performance is pretty impressive. If a three or four engine airplane loses one engine during takeoff, it has to be able to safely continue the takeoff. Same rule. But if a four engine airplane loses TWO engines on takeoff, it's in DEEP trouble. And if the three engine airplane loses two engine during takeoff, it's all over. In cruise, you can get away with losing two on a four and keep going, albeit at a lower altitude. But in takeoff, where it's really critical, lose two engines on that four engine plane, or worse yet, on the three engine plane, and you're going to hike home if you're lucky. > > > >And since twin-engine ETOPS planes use the same types of systems used in > >three and four-engine airplanes, the chances of an inflight problem are > >the same for all of them. > > The problem is, you lose one engine, you've lost half your redundancy. > You lose two in a 747, you've lost half of your redundancy. You lose > two in a 777, you're going swimming. The problem is that you're doing what so many people continue to do- focusing on the engines. The engines these days are so reliable (I've seen the current data on the numbers of in-flight shutdowns of today's high-bypass fanjets on all airplanes regardless of the number of engines, and believe me, it's a tiny number), that they're almost not a factor in airplane reliability anymore. That wasn't true ten or twenty years ago, but it is today. Of the very few problems there are on today's airplanes, most of them are caused by a problem in the airplane's sytems, NOT in the engines. An electrical failure is going to have the same effects on a four engine airplane as it does on a twin. Your argument will be that a four engine airplane has four sources of electrical power, but so does an ETOPS twin. > > > >Actually, there are less risks in an ETOPS airplane because not only does > >the plane have additional backup capabilities in the critical systems, but > > But why do they need additional backups if the basic components are so > reliable? :-) We can go a looooong way with this kind of logic. Because as far as the engine and airframe manufacturers are concerned, there is no acceptable level of airplane loss. As overused a cliche as it is, it's better to be safe than sorry. So the manufacturers sit around and come up with everything they think could possibly go wrong, and then figure out a way to keep those situations from endangering the people on the airplane. We do this despite the fact that the engines and systems components are incredibly reliable, and we do it on every airplane, regardless of how many engines it's going to have. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Stuart Law" Subject: Re: Sterile Cockpit ???? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stuart W. Law Co Reply-To: lorck@sn.no Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:31 Message-ID: Petter Lorck wrote in article ... > audmcl@aol.com (AuDMCL) wrote: > >What is the "sterile cockpit" rule. Something to do with vasectomies? Operations conducted under Airline Transport (Part 121) rules or Air Taxi/Commuter (Part 135) rules are subject to special restrictions on crew duties during "Critical Phases" of flight operations. These are detailed in Federal Aviation Regulation 121.542 and 135.100. Since the rules appear to be identical, I include only the 121 version: 121.542 Flight crewmember duties. (a) No certificate holder shall require, nor may any flight crewmember perform, any duties during a critical phase of flight except those duties required for the safe operation of the aircraft. Duties such as company required calls made for such nonsafety related purposes as ordering galley supplies and confirming passenger connections, announcements made to passengers promoting the air carrier or pointing out sights of interest, and filling out company payroll and related records are not required for the safe operation of the aircraft. (b) No flight crewmember may engage in, nor may any pilot in command permit, any activity during a critical phase of flight which could distract any flight crewmember from the performance of his or her duties or which could interfere in any way with the proper conduct of those duties. Activities such as eating meals, engaging in nonessential conversations within the cockpit and nonessential communications between the cabin and cockpit crews, and reading publications not related to the proper conduct of the flight are not required for the safe operation of the aircraft. (c) For the purposes of this section, critical phases of flight includes all ground operations involving taxi, takeoff and landing, and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet, except cruise flight. Note: Taxi is defined as "movement of an airplane under its own power on the surface of an airport." From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dennis L. Murphy" Subject: Re: longest flight? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. Reply-To: dlmurphy@neosoft.com Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:31 Message-ID: Don Stokes wrote: > Alan Wong wrote: > >Similarly for other southern hemisphere trans-continental routes such as > >Auckland to Buenos Aires and Johannesburg/Cape Town to Rio/Sao Paulo/Buenos > >Aires. This will have implications for airlines such as Qantas, Air New > >Zealand and South African Airways when purchasing aircraft eg A340 vs 777X. > There's very little traffic AKL/SYD to S. America, certainly not enough > to affect aircraft purchasing decisions; certainly not enough to justify > purchase of a completely new aircraft type (Air NZ is very much a Boeing > shop). There's also too little traffic to justify direct flights; the > usual approach to serving S. America is by island hopping ... ... > In short, if you've got an ETOPS 767, you can serve S. Pacific to S. > American routes and live with island hopping. You'd need a 747-400 or > similar range aircraft to do the route non-stop, and there just isn't the > traffic to justify it. I believe that Aerolinas Argentina (the Aregentian Airline) flys non-stop from Auckland to Buenos Aires several times a week with a 747-200 aircraft. The flight from Buenos Aires to Auckland stops in western Argentina before heading out to Auckland. From kls Sat Oct 12 21:34:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: kbrews@comanche.wildstar.net (Keith Brewster) Subject: Re: Great Circle mapper Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Wildfire Internet Services Date: 12 Oct 96 21:34:32 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >[This is drifting away from aviation -- is there any newsgroup >appropriate for maps and cartography?] > >>I have seen (in a restaurant!) a large number of maps each of which >>was centered on a major world city and any straight line form which >>was a great circle. This is a topic important for radio communication. There is PC software written by amateur radio enthusiasts to do this. I suggest checking the amateur radio newsgroup(s) for recommendations. -Keith From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) Subject: 747s In The Movies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, CA Reply-To: etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:07 Message-ID: Some interesting activities involving 747s seem to be going on at LAX right now. First, for the last two days a Tower Air 747 has been participating in the filming of a movie or TV show. There seem to be two basic setups involved in the production. In one setup, a self-propelled stairway is running along the front of the port side of the 747 as it is taxiing. In this setup, the airstair is on the far side of the 747 from my point of view, so I don't know more about the stunt involved. The second setup has the same airstair running along behind the 747 as it taxis. As the airstair catches up to the 747, a stuntman climbs to the top of the airstair and appears to try and do something to tail of the aircraft. (I can't quite tell if the stuntman is actually trying to climb into the 747.) Watching this filmmaking activity brings a couple of questions to mind: first, what's the ballpark cost of renting a 747 for a day? The 747 is running on its own power (it's not being towed), so there are fuel costs involved, as well as a crew to operate the plane. My second question involves the crew: any thoughts on whether a pilot would be operating the 747 for this type of operation? My guess would be the answer is "yes", and might even involve someone with stunt-flying background, like a Frank Tallman or a Clay Lacey. Obviously, you want to start out with someone who knows how to operate a 747. This could include mechanics as well as flight crew. However, we're talking about coordinating the movement of the 747 with ground vehicles (the airstair and one or two camera trucks) that are running alongside in very close proximity to the 747. A stunt pilot would be familiar with this kind of coordination, which might prove useful even though no flying seems to be involved. So much for Tower Air. It looks like Kalitta/American International Airways has a 747 (N703CK) painted up as a replica of the VC-25A used as Air Force One. This plane arrived late this afternoon (Wednesday). At first, I thought it really was AF-1, but as it came closer to my vantage point, the N-number registration and the "Connie" callsign sort of gave it away. When it finally ended up at the Imperial Cargo Center and started discharging containers, I thought that was a dead giveaway :). But I'm very impressed by the paint job on N703CK. It looks like the real thing (even down to the 28000 tail number). I'm guessing that the plane is involved in another movie or TV shoot. What's a ballpark figure for the cost of painting a 747? -- etech@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463 etech@netcom.com --------------------- Prodigy: GCXJ11A http://users.deltanet.com/~etech From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: egotrip@lesol1.dseg.ti.com (Mike Neus) Subject: Re: Fuselage temps, wind, et al Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Texas Instruments Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:08 Message-ID: In article , Newtimes Ltd. Philippines said... > >Why is anti-ice applied on the leading edge of the wing (of a >high-altitude) and not on the fuselage? Can we assume that friction >also generates enough heat to prevent a build-up of ice on the >fuselage? And if so, what is the surface temperature of the fuselage at >cruising speed/altitude? Ted, the problem is ice can't build up on the wings specifically. Ice on the wing interfears with the airflow and affects the lift. Enough ice build up and there is no lift at all. The fusalage doesn't matter as much, the only penalty here is added weight and drag. However on DC-9 type aircraft, they will deice the entire plane to keep ice from getting sucked into the eingines. >Without or without computers, how is wind & direction computed during >flight? I don't think you can...a plane buzzing at 500 miles an hour would pretty much make any direction or velocity detection difficult, if not impossible. I must also ask, why would anyone care? From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Fuselage temps, wind, et al Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Telepath Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:09 Message-ID: I'll take a shot at Ted's questions: In article , ntphil@ibm.net says... > >Why is anti-ice applied on the leading edge of the wing (of a >high-altitude) and not on the fuselage? -because loss of lift is a more prompt performance deficit than increase in weight. >Can we assume that friction >also generates enough heat to prevent a build-up of ice on the >fuselage? -yes, for supersonic types. >And if so, what is the surface temperature of the fuselage at >cruising speed/altitude? For modest sub-sonic speeds, similar to the outside air temp. The Standard atmosphere model assumes this decays from a sea level value of 15 degC by abt 2 degC per thousand feet to 36000 ft where it stabilizes at -56degC Temperature rises at higher altitudes. In near Earth space, a spun object may stabilize around 15 degC Ice is only a hazard where much water is available in the atmosphere. Hence the climb and descent phase is the principal risk. >Without or without computers, how is wind & direction computed during >flight? Direction is indicated by magnetic compass or INS Loran GPS ADF VOR etc... Wind is inferred from differences between true airspeed and groundspeed. >Thanks, You're welcome brian whatcott From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hbarr@internetmci.com (Harry W. Barr) Subject: Batteries & electrical systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Fur Elise - Finest of Felines - 9/94 - 8/96 @}-'--,--- Reply-To: hbarr@internetmci.com Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:09 Message-ID: Greetings, Am interested in learning about types of batteries used and configurations of electrical systems (voltage, alternators, etc) in passenger aircraft over 12,500 lbs. and in military aircraft. Could someone direct me to a FAQ or other information source? Thanks. -- _____________________________________________________ Harry W. Barr * hbarr@internetMCI.com * hwb@genie.com Private Pilot, SEL / KSUS, St. Louis, MO USA From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? 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: 12 Oct 96 22:13:09 Message-ID: A decade ago, I worked on a project with the {ground} fuel systems guru for UAL. (I'll not name him, but he was noted for bow ties...) He insisted that we'd have one more complete generation of oil-burners, then we'd start to see hydrogen powered aircraft. That would solve the NOx problem, at least..... -- 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 Sat Oct 12 22:13:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:10 Message-ID: I do not know if and when this will apply to commercial airliners, but looking at the design of the proposed new shuttle and new fighter jets, they have been able to compromise mechanical flight stability with the use of sophisticated flight management systems. The new shuttle (if built) basically will not have conventional wings but flight stability will be acheived with carefully controlled small control surfaces that will compensate for the otherwise unstable design. In other words, with computers, you can use a design which would have otherwise been too difficult to fly with a conventional mechanical cockpit. Whether advantages from such designs would benefit the commercial airliner market is another question. I beleive that in the short/medium term, advancements will be driven by economics (eg: more fuel efficient, easier to maintain etc) and that it will take a while before we get a pride-driven design (eg: Concorde, or a shuttle-for-passengers-doing-in-45-minutes) From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:10 Message-ID: brown@asiaonline.net wrote: >the nosewheels are not mounted on the aircraft fuselage centre-line. Of course, that's complete BS, except on the Trident. However, on some aircraft, there is a longeron at exactly the bottom of the fuselage, so the fin antennas are typically mounted slightly offset from the bottom, between the bottom and adjacent longerons. This might lead one to believe the plane is taxiing crooked. From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hansj@algonet.se (Hans Jakobsson) Subject: Boeing 747 Website Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AlgoNet Public Access Node, Stockholm Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:10 Message-ID: You are all very welcome to check in at the Boeing 747 Information Centre, the - as far as I know - only site on the 'net dedicated to this beautiful aircraft. 747 news, specifications, lots of photos and other information - why not visit? The address is http://www.algonet.se/~hansj/747/index.htm Welcome onboard! Hans Jakobsson Webmaster From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav Path: bounce-back From: rmeizlik@carroll.com Subject: Re: Can't use GPS on Alaska Airlines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4vkuns$54b@news1.ni.net> <321E425F.70C0@macromedia.com> <321F5320.CC0@mail.wwd.net> Reply-To: rmeizlik@carroll.com Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:11 Message-ID: In , boyd@france3.fr (Boyd Roberts) writes: >While in Manhattan I was a bit suprised during 31 August and 1 >September when I was getting ~5 km position errors. In the weeks >following the worst it got was 100's of metres. Obviously Manhattan >is not great for GPS and the Empire State Building and the internal >observation deck of the World Trade Centre are a dead loss. One would hope that famous landmarks (Empire State building, WTC, Statue of Liberty, etc....) have their locations purposely fudged to avoid being targeted by terrorists using buzz-bomg/gps combos. Also, the WTC observation deck moves significantly in the wind. Just go to the bathroom or run a water fountain and watch the water move back and forth. -BOBm >>My Posts and Opinions are My Own<< From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav Path: bounce-back From: caveman@castles.com (Mikey) Subject: Re: Can't use GPS on Alaska Airlines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4vkuns$54b@news1.ni.net> <321E425F.70C0@macromedia.com> <321F5320.CC0@mail.wwd.net> Organization: Zippo Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:11 Message-ID: Somewhere, this thread got way off track. We were talking about using an aircraft ready GPS unit, not some little imported piece of plastic music box for kids. There is NO comparison. An aircraft ready GPS unit is, indeed, aircraft ready! That is what they are designed for, to be used on a plane (or jet). Let's talk about the real problem, please. Mike From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Can't use GPS on Alaska Airlines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4vkuns$54b@news1.ni.net> <321E425F.70C0@macromedia.com> <321F5320.CC0@mail.wwd.net> Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:11 Message-ID: While on a long, boring Alaska Airlines flight recently, I spent some time reading the list of approved/prohibted electronic devices. Interestingly enough, I noticed that the use of heart pacemakers IS approved... ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Oct 12 22:13:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav Path: bounce-back From: Robert Nicholson Subject: Re: Can't use GPS on Alaska Airlines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4vkuns$54b@news1.ni.net> <321E425F.70C0@macromedia.com> <321F5320.CC0@mail.wwd.net> Organization: Direct Connection Reply-To: lattice@dircon.co.uk Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:12 Message-ID: Boyd Roberts wrote: > > I flew with American Airlines from Paris to New York and back in the last > two weeks and was surprised to see that they post the flight waypoints > (or some such aproximation) on maps stuck on galley external walls, > tagged with the flight time. When I saw this I programmed them into my > GPS and created a route. Reading the doc I saw that they allowed some > electronic devices to be used but prohibited _VHF_ radios and thought > to myself 'hah, GPS is _UHF_'. The VHF broadcast band (88mhz-108mhz) is right next door to the V.O.R./I.L.S. aircraft guidance frequencies (108.05mhz-117.95mhz) and any interference could be very nasty in bad weather particularly on approach and landing. The MLS system may avoid problems but as an avionics engineer I would ban COMPLETELY all passenger operated electronic apparatus as being the only foolproof system. Even pilots are not au fait with the possibilities of interference problems. Curiously, it is satellite technology(GPS etc) that has stymied development of the microwave landing system(MLS). Avionics is like computers, you invest in equipment and 2 years later it's a collectors item. From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: Markus Buttinger Subject: looking for VC-10 military designator Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of PING - Personal InterNet Gate Reply-To: markus-b@ping.at Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:12 Message-ID: I hope this is the right newsgroup to post my question... Is anyone able to tell me the military designator for the VC-10 aircraft (I guess it's a Vickers) that is still in use by the Royal Air Force? The civil use of this aircraft has been disontiniued I guess about 20 years ago and the RAF - to my knowledge - are the only ones that still fly this plane. I saw one if those (callsign: ZD 230) in Iraklion/Crete Island on Tuesday. It's a totally brown a/c with a big white 'K' in the tail. - Anyone out there with info on what this could be - (tanker/mines searcher, etc.)? Thank's a lot, Markus from Salzburg, Austria From kls Sat Oct 12 22:13:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dvigna@harp.aix.calpoly.edu (Daniel John Vigna (BIG Dan)) Subject: Seaplane research Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: 12 Oct 96 22:13:12 Message-ID: In the intrest of a design project, I am researching various aspects of seaplanes and floatplanes, more specificaly, feuselage/hull design, power requirements for TO from water, use of turbofan engines as opposed to turboprops. The plane is to be amphibious, capable of carrying 60 passengers or more. Any information or referances on the above topics or others that may be relevant to such a craft would be greatly appreciated. Please reply by e-mail to dvigna@turbojet.calpoly.edu Thanks Dan Vigna -- From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andy Lambert Subject: Vanguard Lands at Brooklands (Last Flight) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motor Trade Software and the National Rescue Group Reply-To: andy@motor-software.co.uk Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:16 Message-ID: Vickers Vanguard (Merchantman) G-APEP successfully made the last ever flight of the type, to return home to Brooklands today -17 October. Fully story on the Brooklands Home Page which can be found at:- http://www.motor-software.co.uk/ National Rescue Press Office From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:16 Message-ID: When I visited Boeing in Seattle in 1995 I was shown the 737 and 757 production lines. In the middle of the floor was a fenced-off area where the historic aircraft team were refurbishing a WW2 B17 from the rivets up. Absolutely fascinating! (The particular aircraft in question had "starred" as the Memphis Belle in the film.) The bit that is relevant to this discussion, however, is that the fuel tanks were flexible bags. Apparently, they were lined with some self-sealing compound to stop the leak if a bit of flak went through. Presumably, as the fuel was used up, the bags simply collapsed so that there was never any gas-filled space above the liquid fuel. (At least, I think I remembered this detail correctly. Anyone with more knowledge of WW2 aircraft is welcome to correct me.) 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 Mon Oct 21 02:29:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bmackey@ucsd.edu (bob mackey) Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: San Diego SuperComputer Center at UCSD Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:17 Message-ID: On 03 Sep 96 01:16:54 , Bob Falkiner wrote: >Mikeit takes only a small percentage of an inert gas to render an explosive atmosphere >"safe" regardless of what the gas is. It comes down to energy of explosion >and energy to heat up inert gases to the point where the combustion is >self containing. If you blow up the main fuel tank, inert gas protection >is not going to mean much, and if you just want to protect the air space in the >thank. then a little bit of exhaust gas is going to be hard to beat. The explosive limits of a fuel-air mixture vary widely depending on the fuel, the pressure, and the temperature. As Bob F. suggests, the key is whether there is enough heat output from combustion, to sustain a temperature rise that can continue the combustion. But it is not generally true that a few percent of exhaust gas will suspress combustion. I'm sure that will be obvious if you consider how that exhaust gas came into being...A fuel air mixture burned without choking itself on its own exhaust. Of course the pressures and temperatures in the cylinder were different than in the fuel tank, but we wish to make the tank truly non-explosive. Two extreme fuel examples are hydrogen and acetylene. With either of these gases, adding 90% exhaust to a fuel-air mixture will leave the mixture explosive. -bob mackey bmackey@ucsd.edu From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dave lawson <71202.1577@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Over wing fuel leak Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dave Lawson Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:17 Message-ID: alain arnaud wrote: > > Last week I was on a UA757 LAX to BOS. About 90mn in the flight we got > diverted into Denver due to an over the wing fuel leak. The fuel cap > seal was defective and fuel was leaking from the tank. A passenger noticed that > there was a liquid streaming from the trailing edge of the wing, he notified > the flight attendent, and after separate inspection by the crew the captain > decided to divert. > > We were met on the runway by multiple fire engines and other vehicles. We > stopped at the end of the taxiway for an inspection before heading to the gate. > > The repair took about 30mn and then we were back on our way. That is not terribly surprising. I have been involved in a modification program on MD-80s that involves doing an upper surface tank test as part of the aicraft preparation. We draw vacuum on a full tank and always find several fasteners and usually an access cover that leak. The black streaks on the upper wing (normally light grey paint) give away the presence of leaking fasteners/hatches. Most airlines live with the problem until the quantity of fuel lost is significant or they have a heavy check. Tank diving is not fun. Dave Lawson From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David K. Cornutt" Subject: Re: Over wing fuel leak Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Residential Engineering Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:17 Message-ID: In article alain arnaud, ecla@world.std.com writes: >Last week I was on a UA757 LAX to BOS. About 90mn in the flight we got >diverted into Denver due to an over the wing fuel leak. The fuel cap >seal was defective and fuel was leaking from the tank. I read somewhere in an article about the 777 that these top-of-wing gravity fuel fill caps were omitted on that plane, precisely for this reason. Apparently, the launch customers requested it, saying that they never use these anymore anyway. --- David K. Cornutt, Residentially Engineered, Huntsville, AL email: cornutt@hiwaay.net I'm a rocket scientist. I know the difference between an increase and a decrease. From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Tiny SST (was: SST development) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:17 Message-ID: In article , Don Stokes wrote: >In article , >Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: >>In article , >>Don Stokes wrote: >>> >>>Question: would a small SST, say 20 seats plus crew, say the size of a >>>(shudder) metroliner, travelling at Mach 2 at 55,000+ ft, produce enough >>>of a sonic boom at ground level to prevent overflying populated areas? >> >>In a word, yes. > >Dang! 8-) > >>There are several caveats to that statement. One, no weird configurations >>(there are some data that suggest that the skewed wing configurations can >>be designed to fly very quietly). Two, no advancement in wing technology >>from four years ago. > >Does this imply that there has been such an advancement in wing >technology? (He says in the light of the fact Boeing and others are >toying with SST concepts again -- I never thought I'd see a photo of a >TU144 with Boeing and MDD logos on it..) It implies that I haven't kept up with supersonic airfoil and shockwave technology for the last four years. I assume that there is continued research and development in the field, but I'm hoping that I'd have heard if someone had figured out how to fly the airplane that fast, keep a relatively conventional configuration (keeps us out of some of the more innovative failure modes), and yet quiet enough not to disturb grazing bovines or sleeping shift workers. -- 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 Oct 21 02:29:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Why not a full length upper deck on a 747-600X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The University of Iowa Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:18 Message-ID: On 12 Oct 1996, Jim Young wrote: > > The really big reason is aerodynamics. A little things called area rule > (look it up in any basic aero book or email me if you want an explanation) > plays a big part in the drag of an airplane. When Boeing originally > streched the 747-200 to the longer upper deck on the -300, the drag of the > airplane actually went down, even though there was more fuselage. Would this mean that if, say, the Boing 757 were to be enlarged to carry more passengers that there would be less drag if instead of extending the fuselage fore and aft with the existing cross section, the fuselage was made double deck in front of the wings and extended single deck aft of the wings so as to maintain weight and aerodynamic balance? In other words, would the drag reduction from improved area ruling make up for the increased cross sectional area? I realize that the complexity of doing this and getting it certified compared to a simple stretch job could easily make it impractical even if there were performance advantages. Also, the ratio of passenger seats to cargo space would be changed, although if cargo space were important, a carrier would probably not be using a B757. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Why not a full length upper deck on a 747-600X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:18 Message-ID: In article , Mike Neus wrote: >In article , Tomas Stephanson said... >> >>I saw some pictures on the new proposed 747-600X and saw that the >>upperdeck did not extend the whole length of the aircraft compared >>to the Airbus 3XX. >> >>Why does the 747 have a upper deck in the first place? Was it >>for futre expansion? Not initially, no. It just sort of turned out that way. >>Why does Boeing not want to extend the upperdeck the full length of >>the aircraft, is it not economical, aerodynamic, weight penalty? Yes. :-) >The 747 was originally designed as a cargo plane. Once you understand this, >the shape of the 747 is logical. To maximize cargo space and allow the nose >of the plane to open for fast loading/unloading, the best place for the >cockpit is on top of the fuseloge, hence the upper deck. I'm not sure why >the deck is as long as it is. One could speculate it was for aerodynamics >(it makes sence to make the back of the cockpit a gental slope for this >reason alone) or somebody invisioned it as carrying a small number of >passengers who wanted to go with the cargo, or maybe it even would hold >smaller cargo. Actually, it has the cockpit on the upper deck to avoid the weight penalties associated with the 9-G rigid barrier which would have been required with a flight deck in the path of decelerating cargo pallets. Loading and unloading through the nose was a secondary consideration, if in fact, it was considered at all. It is as long as it is (all three lengths that I know of off hand) for two reasons. First, Juan Trippe demanded that the upper deck be lengthened during the preliminary design in order to put paying passengers up there. Secondly, Trippe had a good idea, and Boeing has lengthened the upper deck twice and will be lengthening it for the fourth time on the -600X. Initially, the upper deck was much smaller and only had room for the flight deck and the airconditioning ductwork. >Ultimately though, the space was obviously used for passengers and in fact >the hump on the original 747-100 is relatively short, while the hump on the >higher capacity -400 is much longer. The only practicle reason I can think >of not to extend it all the way back is the entire back end of the 747 might >have to be redesigned for extra support and the tail moved up to get it out >of the turbulence, etc. Obviously, this would be quite an expense. Nope. The basic reason not to do it is drag. Too much of it for too small a return in increased revenues (the additional passenger bags displace revenue cargo, so the trade isn't as clean as you might think). -- 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 Oct 21 02:29:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Erico Oller Westerberg Subject: Re: Antarctica Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Appelberg Publications Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:18 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > >Long time ago (1975?) Aerolineas Argentinas advertised it was pioneering > >passanger flights over the South Pole. Maybe it is wrong, but I recall > >there were flights from Buenos Aires to Tokyo. I can't remember if these > >flights had a stop at Auckland, NZ. > EZE-NRT non-stop is 9883nm, well beyond the range of any airliner in > service today, much less twenty years ago. Even going via AKL, they > would have to go pretty far out of their way to cross the South Pole -- > neither the non-stop nor the one-stop route even cross over Antarctica > much less the pole. Now I am very courious. Let us say it was not a flight over hte South Pole but definitively over Antarctica. I remember a very heavy advertising. Does anyone remember if Aerol=EDneas Argentinas was flying regularly a route over Antarctica? From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:18 Message-ID: McElravy wrote: > > Continuing on this megastring, the Boeing web page now has computerized, > photographic images of the new 747s in the collage on its main page. The > -500 (or maybe its the -600; which ever one is the increased capacity > version) is fantastic looking. The length of the fuselage is finally in > reasonable proportion with the width and height, resulting in a more > 777-like appearance. Great looking-check it out. They are gone now from the homepage, but the section on specifications for commercial aircraft has the specs for the 747-500X and -600X. I also just read on clarinews that Malaysia airlines has effectively announced that they will be the launch customer for the 747-500X. They have apparantly decided to order 6 of the -500Xs. In more Boeing news, the Wall Street Journal reported that USAir is contemplating buying 120 new aircraft to consolodate their aircraft family, and Boeing is ahead in the bidding. -- Joseph Edward Nemec nemecj@mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/ From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Mark Ingram Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:18 Message-ID: On 11 Oct 1996, Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: [Quoting Mark Ingram:] > >I do suspect that there could be any number of significant "grandfathered" > >737 systems that would not meet current certification criteria. In one of > >the _AW&ST_ articles discussing the NTSB's ongoing investigation of 737 > >uncommanded rudder inputs (United and USAir, among others), it was > >reported that the rudder PCU (power control unit, I believe it is) could > >not be certified under today's regulations. > > I've not worked the 737 in a year or so, but I don't recall anything like > that. That sounds like a suspiciously irresponsible statement to me. > Do you recall exactly where you read that? Perhaps someone with the _AW&ST_ CD-ROM (or complete back issues) can help me out here, as far as the exact date and issue. It has been within the last six months that this particular article was published. I find _AW&ST_ at times exasperatingly conservative, on rare occasions dead wrong, but irresponsible - hardly ever. As to the design problems "grandfathered" into the main and standby rudder PCU's, and the yaw damper system, one has only to read the latest NTSB recommendations to know that there are significant problems here (_AW&ST_, October 7, 1996, p. 20, "NTSB Seeks Upgrades to 737 Rudder System"). > FWIW, there cannot be "any number" of significant systems that do not meet > current criteria. Each manufacturer has to request a specific > "grandfathering" action from the appropriate regulatory agency, and they > are all subject to negotiation with that same regulatory agency. The > regulatory agency keeps very close tabs on what systems are in the airplane > as well as their cert status. Besides the PCU's dual-concentric servo valves, which are susceptible to galling, there are definitely any number of 737 -100's and -200's flying with old-technology flight data recorders (five-channel foil models, perhaps?). While these are indeed "certified" for their use on certain aircraft, they nonetheless are not "certifiable under current criteria" for installation under new Type certificates. Each and every one of these exemptions may indeed have been negotiated with a certifying ageny, but it still doesn't make the exempted technology "currently certifiable." Regards, Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: DC-9/MD-80 Type Certificate Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:19 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > >While the FAA was once very retentive about type designations (see >past discussions about why the L-1011-385-1-14 has such a cumbersome >moniker), I thought they eased up and let MD use MD-88 as the official >designation, without forcing a new TC just for a name change. > And what do you base this statement on? I have worked for the ACO for many quite some time and to my knowledge nothing has changed when it comes to designations. The applicant can call it anything they like as long as it is clearly listed as a different model. From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Service Bulletins for Part 25 Aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:19 Message-ID: Brian A. Reynolds wrote in article ... > What regulates the issuance and control > of Service Bulletins for Part 25 aircraft in Part 121 service? --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Stuart Law" replied: This may be hard to believe, but maintenance manuals and especially underlying service bulletins are generally not regulated by the FAA. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure that our brethern at the FAA flight Standards Office would agree with this position :) Part 25 (Airworthiness Standards, Transport Category Airplanes) Subpart G, Operating Limitations and Information, subparagraph 25.1359, instructions for Continued Airworthiness: The applicant must prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with Appendx H to this part that are acceptable to the Administrator (generally accepted to mean - approved by the FAA) Part 25 Appendix H, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness subparagraph H25.1(c): The applicant must submit to the FAA aprogram to show how changes to the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness made by the applicant or by the manufactures of products and appliances installed in the airplane will be distribued. Appendix H of Part 25 goes on to describe the required contencts of these instructions. |side bar - In FAA parlance, the applicant is the entity which is asking for an FAA finding of compliance with applicable regulations. A product is an airplane, engine or propeller (note that APUs are being added in the next revision of FAR Part 21). So in general, we think of the applicant aa being an airframe manufacture (Boeing, Douglas, Airbus, Ilyushin, et. al.) although it can also be an engine manufactuer (Pratt, GE, Snecma, Rolls etc.) So the entity which creates the product is required, as a condition of a Finding of Compliance (i.e. Type Design Approval/Type Certificate) to have prepared and received approval of, maintenance procedures.| Part 121 (Certification and Opertions: ... Commercial Operators of Large Aircraft) Subpart L (Maintenance, Preventatove Maintenance, and Alterations), subparagraph 121.363 Responsibility for airworthiness(a)(2) Each certificae holder is primarily responsible for the performance of the maintenafne, preentive maintenance, and alteration of its aircraft... in accordance with ITS manual and the regulations of this chapter. Followed by 121.367(a) (Each certifiaqte holder shall have ... a program that ensures that) "maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed by it or by other persons, are performed in accordance with the certificate holder's manual;" But perhaps one of the most important (to this discussion anyway :) is 121.379(a) A certificate holder may perform ... maintenane, preventive maintenace, and alterations as provided in its continuous airworthiness maintenance program and its maintenance manual. (and (b) However, in the case of a major repair or major alteration, the work must have been done in accordance with technical data approved by the Administrator. Sooo.... unless the certificate holder separates the minor work from major work, the technical data (i.e maintenance manuals) must be approved by the Administrator. (Geez that was tortuous! :) The 'normal' way for a large carrier to do this is to show equivalancy with the manufactures manuals - a process that is normally done during the introduction to service of a new aircraft. So there is NO rquirement that a carriers maintance manuals be identical with the manufactues (the maintenance procedrue used by AA for onwing engine replacement was per their approved processes but were not in accordance with the Douglas procedures. Chater carriers and those without a large in-house publications department to support may chose to use the manufactures maintenance manual without further approval. So thanks to Stuart (for pointing me in the right direction) I've answered my own question. Maintenance manuals are changed in a manner acceptable to the Administrator so in a deswcription of how MM are changed I need to use the phrase 'it is common practice...' rather then 'As defined in ACxx.xxx....' Thanks Stuart! (As another side remark, AC 121.22A defines the Maintenance Steering Group which defines the initial maintenance requirements and intervalts. There is a dreft AC floating about which deals with Certification Maintenance Requirements which deals with the need to address safety issues identified during the design and certification process.) From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Bosc Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:19 Message-ID: pboswell@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Peter Boswell) writes: > I just finished reading Stephen Frederick's "Unheeded Warning: the inside > story of American Eagle Flight 4184," and was wondering if the French > manufacturer of the ATR-42 and ATR-72, Aerospatiale, is part of the > consortium which builds the Airbus series? Frederick's analysis of > Aerospatiale's continued denials of problems with the ATR's performance in > icing conditions is chilling enough to persuade me never to set foot in an > ATR. If the same company is connected with the Airbus, I would be very > cautious about travelling again in one of those, too. Once again probably some totally independant and unbiased point of view. If I had to choose in which type of aircraft not to set foot, I would probably be more worried by the amazing number of Boeing crashes during the last few years, which were generally caused by technical failures, or remain unexplained ... JF -- Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr) Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile TOULOUSE From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:19 Message-ID: In article , pboswell@morgan.ucs.mun.ca says... > >I just finished reading Stephen Frederick's "Unheeded Warning: the inside >story of American Eagle Flight 4184," and was wondering if the French >manufacturer of the ATR-42 and ATR-72, Aerospatiale, is part of the >consortium which builds the Airbus series? Frederick's analysis of >Aerospatiale's continued denials of problems with the ATR's performance in >icing conditions is chilling enough to persuade me never to set foot in an >ATR. If the same company is connected with the Airbus, I would be very >cautious about travelling again in one of those, too. > Basing you decision on a book is very shortsighted. Would it not be better to find out what has been done to ensure the safety of the ATRs instead of jumping to conclusions? Extensive testing of the aircraft for icing with new extended de-icing boots has been done. I also believe that the modification was required by AD to be installed on all airraft (operated in the U.S). From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:20 Message-ID: In article , pboswell@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Peter Boswell) writes: >I just finished reading Stephen Frederick's "Unheeded Warning: the inside >story of American Eagle Flight 4184," and was wondering if the French >manufacturer of the ATR-42 and ATR-72, Aerospatiale, is part of the >consortium which builds the Airbus series? Frederick's analysis of >Aerospatiale's continued denials of problems with the ATR's performance in >icing conditions is chilling enough to persuade me never to set foot in an >ATR. If the same company is connected with the Airbus, I would be very >cautious about travelling again in one of those, too. ATR is not Airbus per se, but it is made by a partnership of two of the members of the Airbus consortium. The plane rolls off the factory floor in Tolouse (sp?) France, right next to Airbus aircraft. A friend who flew ATR's and now flies an Airbus reports that systems, terminology, etc. are very similar in the two products. For all intents and purposes it's like a little Airbus. However, the crux of the problem on the ATR was ice forming behind the boots. Airbuses, like most jetliners, use Thermal Anti-Ice, as opposed to pneumatic boot De-Ice. TAI is much superior. Therefore an Airbus would not suffer from this problem. Also, I would not hesitate to set foot back in an ATR today. The boots were extended further back on the wing, which should solve the problem. A little too late, however, for the folks who died in Roselawn. Also, Frederick may not be exactly an objective source. He definitely has some axes to grind. Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ----------------------------- Props are for boats! ----------------------------- From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael.F.Lechnar@boeing.com Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: e Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:20 Message-ID: In article john1082@aol.com (John1082) writes: >Several jets had the ability to ferry an engine to an out of the way spot. >The early 747 could do it and I believe the L1011 could as well. There >could be others. > >This would likely have been a built in option when the plane was built, >with the hard points built into the wing from the beginning. > >But what a fuel guzzler if used. For what it's worth, a good generalized number for the fuel penalty for carrying a spare engine is 15%. There are also speed restrictions. For the -200 with RR engines, the limit is Mach .82/320 KIAS. Spare engine carriage was developed due to the lack of 747 main deck freighters during the early days. No narrow body freighter could accomodate a built-up big fan engine. The combination of more wide body freighters and an increase in engine reliability has made spare engine carriage a rare event. In fact, for the 747-400, only the RB211 engine model is certified to carry a spare engine. The others have the capability, but since no customer wanted to use it, performance flight testing for certification was not done. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:20 Message-ID: > I just posted a photo of a Pan Am 747SP with five engines on my Web > page, http://rampages.onramp.net/~djs. Don, Just in case anybody gets confused, this arangement is called "5th podding" and was created to provided a means to move 747 engines from place to place. The 5th engine is just carried, no fuel, no thrust. It did, of course, generate the obvious ribbing that the early JT-9D's were so awful that 4 engines wasn't enough redundancy. :-) Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. 206-544-5227 @777 PW4090 F/T 1420 So. Trenton st. 206-663-0913 beeper Bldg 15-30 1st flr door N5 Seattle, Wa. 98108 From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bio-Rad MicroScience UK Reply-To: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:20 Message-ID: In , Paul Kearney writes: >On 12 Oct 1996, Donald J. Shelton wrote: >The 747 Is used to ferry spare engines around the world by attaching them >inboard on the Left Wing between the Normal inboard engine and the >wing root. Here's an ironic story. I was delayed 5 hours on the ground in just such a plane. One the engines wouldn't start, but of course they couldn't use the "spare" :?) Matthew Harrison. From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Fifth engine (was: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:20 Message-ID: In addition to the types mentioned, the VC-10 could, and often did, fly with a fifth engine in a wing mounted ferry pod. Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Jet engine rpm Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:21 Message-ID: Without delving into a bunch of obscure data, I can tell you that a JT8-D series engine runs about 9,000 RPM for low pressure (N1) and 14,000 for high pressure (N2). That having been said, the whole point of the ultra-high bypass engine is to move more air at lower velocity therefore decreasing the noise. If there is interest, I can look up some more numbers... TheFNG From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Keith R. Thompson" Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:21 Message-ID: GWilson404@aol.com wrote in article ... > In article , "David G. Davidson" > writes: > > >727 APU installation is the best of the three, but also far from ideal. > > Can anyone describe to me what the 727 APU installation actually is? The B-727 was originally designed without provision for an APU and was later added to the design at the behest of the airlines. Because the engine and aft airstair configuration ruled out mounting the APU in the tail, Boeing basically cut a hole through the keel in the forward part of the main gear wheel wells and mounted the APU there. Air for the APU is drawn from the left wheel well and exhausted through a port in the top of the right wing near the fuselage. The APU uses a flow multiplier which draws from the right wheel well. The main problem with this installation is that in extremely hot environments, high temperatures in the wheelwell when the APU is operating can result in a Lower Aft Body overheat warning light illuminating on the engineer's panel. That's why under these conditions ground crew will frequently drop the main gear doors if the aircraft will be idle for awhile. This aids airflow to the APU and reduces the likelihood of getting the warning light. -- Keith R. Thompson keithrt@earthlink.net Denver, CO From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:21 Message-ID: > Can anyone describe to me what the 727 APU installation actually is? The APU is in the main gear bay, on the centerline, behind the rear spar. The APU is actually situated in a hole in the fuselage keel beam. Inlet air comes from the gear bay (I believe the gear must be down to run the APU) and exhausts through a exit in the right hand upper wing skin. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Oct 21 02:29:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:21 Message-ID: The B-727 APU is mounted in the left wheel well. The intake is through the wheel well and the exhaust is a port on top of it. The good news is that is saves a lot of plumbing for fuel, hot air, and electricity. The bad news is that if you forget to turn it off prior to takeoff, the passengers get treated to a real pretty purple flame shooting out of the top of the gear well as it starves for air. TheFNG From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Ted Pleavin" Subject: Re: Canadian Airlines wins YVR to HKG via Russia-China Routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Alexander Gallery Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:21 Message-ID: Jim Innes wrote in article ... You wouldn't happen to work for Canadian Airlines, would you Jimmy? I think you will find all the NOPAC airlines will be using the route shortly. Especially HKG to JFK or ORD or even YYZ. Cheers Ted From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Canadian Airlines wins YVR to HKG via Russia-China Routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:21 Message-ID: >I think you will find all the NOPAC airlines will be using the route >shortly. Especially HKG to JFK or ORD or even YYZ. I was surprised that Canadian was the "first" to use this route, since United uses it for their ORD-HKG non-stop. I doubt you'll be seeing this route used for JFK-HKG anytime soon, though, as that's another 300 miles more than ORD-HKG, which already is pushing the limits of the 747-400. With the A340-8000 or 747-500X, it should be no problem at all, but those are still a few years off. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mcmahong@iol.ie (Gerry McMahon) Subject: Any good biography of Geoffrey de Havilland? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Electronics Test Centre Reply-To: mcmahong@iol.ie Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:21 Message-ID: Anyone know of a good biography of Geoffrey de Havilland ? I'm also interested in any good history of the DH company. Info on biography or any publications of DH test pilot John Cunningham also appreciated. Thanks for any help. Gerry McMahon -- Gerry McMahon Dublin, Ireland [Work : mcmahong@netc.ie, Home : mcmahong@iol.ie] http://www.netc.ie/ From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: avi8r@airmail.net (Kim Christensen) Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: barely Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:22 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >I beleive that Resolute Bay (YRB - Long: 94 50W lat: 74 42N) is >capable of handling large jets even though its runway is gravel. It >handles 737 and 727s easily every day and I was told that a 747 has >landed there at least once. > >Resolute is some 1713 km from the North Pole. > >There is also Alert at the nortern tip of Ellesmere island (approx >85 00N, which brings it to about 600km from the north pole). Alert is >a military outpost closed to the public, but it does handle military >transports. Could this be considered as a "legal" emergency landing >point when considering ETOPS routes ? Forget about Alert. Their runway, navaids and ground facilities are totally inadequate for anything bigger than a C130. Resolute Bay is reasonable, but the best choice of emergency alternates in that region is Thule Airbase (BGTL, 76 32N 68 43W).: 10,000ft asphalt runway, ASR radar, ILS and PAR approaches and complete fire/rescue and ground support (incl. accommodation for hundreds of passengers, if necessary) . Thule routinely handles B727, DC8, DC10, B767 and military C130, C141, C17, C5, and has been used several times for unscheduled landings by jetliners on the polar routes. Resolute Bay would be a good second choice. But Alert? No, no, no, no, no! Drop YLT from your ETOPS calculations and use BGTL instead. From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dave Starr" Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AT&T Internet Service Reply-To: "Dave Starr" Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:22 Message-ID: Also, on the maps as I've seen them so far, I don't see either Thule AB in northwest Greenland (which is still US military and thus may or may not be allowed) but significantly missing is Sondrestrom Greenland, which has a long paved runway and is currently designated by the Danes as Greenland's commercial "gateway airport" (turned back to the Danes fron the US military several years ago). From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:22 Message-ID: >significantly missing is Sondrestrom Greenland Sondre Stromfjord is definitely an ETOPS alternate. It was one of the key alternates used in the original trans-Atlantic ETOPS papers of the early 1980s, and was a critical alternate for North Atlantic ETOPS, at least at 138 minute and lower rule times. With a 180 minute rule time you might be able to get along without it. The only other potential alternate between Iceland and Canada was Narssarsuaq, which is way too far north to be very interesting for most North Atlantic flights, and the facilities are too poor for it to be a very useful alternate. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:22 Message-ID: In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca wrote: >Assuming a ground speed of 900kmh (560 statute miles/hour), 180minutes >gives a range of roughly 2700 km. But ETOPS distances are based on single engine speeds, not normal speed. I don't know what the typical twin jet cruises at on what engine but for the light twins I fly, it is about 2/3 of normal cruise speed. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Mon Oct 21 02:29:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:22 Message-ID: >>Assuming a ground speed of 900kmh (560 statute miles/hour), 180minutes >>gives a range of roughly 2700 km. >But ETOPS distances are based on single engine speeds, not normal speed. I >don't know what the typical twin jet cruises at on what engine but for the >light twins I fly, it is about 2/3 of normal cruise speed. The ETOPS papers I've seen base their analysis on the Boeing 757, with an engine out speed of 389 kts (448 statute miles per hour). This is the value I use for the ETOPS ranges in the great circle mapper, too. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Oct 21 02:51:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Morgoth Bauglir Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Fortress of Utumno Date: 21 Oct 96 02:51:36 Message-ID: C. Marin Faure wrote: > And if the three engine airplane loses two engine during takeoff, > it's all over. But in takeoff, where it's really critical, lose two > engines on the three engine plane, and you're going to hike home if > you're lucky. Technically accurate, if you define takeoff as ending when the wheels come up. But everybody trains for two-engines out on a three holer right *after* takeoff. It's a required part of the checkride. You generally lose the second engine between 500' AGL and 1000' AGL. > Of the very few problems there are on today's airplanes, > most of them are caused by a problem in the airplane's sytems, NOT in the > engines. An electrical failure is going to have the same effects on a > four engine airplane as it does on a twin. Your argument will be that a > four engine airplane has four sources of electrical power, but so does an > ETOPS twin. Still correct, except that a three engine airplane that loses *one* can maintain a pretty respectable altitude, while the twin starts "drift-down" right away. I don't know what kind of altitude a 757/767/777 full of passengers and with 180 minutes of fuel plus reserves can maintain on one engine - perhaps you could shed some light on that. And what happens to the fuel consumption when you get there? Are you running the remaining engine at its limits now? I'm quite convinced that the manufacturers had to come up with book figures showing that this would work to get certified, but in view of the "expedited" ETOPS certification of the B-777 (rumor only) I'm interested in hearing how much faith you have in the process. And why did Airbus go back to *four* engines for the A-340? Melkor From kls Mon Oct 21 02:51:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Oct 96 02:51:36 Message-ID: In article , cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes: >By this argument, double or triple redundancy in instruments or control >systems should also be removed, since the more electronics or the more >hydraulic lines you have, the greater the chance there is for one of them >to fail. Quite right in a sense and this philosophy is applied in satellite design as I found out in a brief period of involvement with the space side of aerospace working on spaceplanes. On a satellite where there's no opportunity for maintenance, the systems are often simplex, but designed to be ultra ultra reliable. Minimises weight and maximises reliability. Its also a fair point in respect of VSTOL aircraft, since its extremely difficult to protect against engine failure in the vertical phase (ref Harrier/AV8). Therefore better to only have onte engine. Gerald Wilson From kls Mon Oct 21 02:51:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 21 Oct 96 02:51:37 Message-ID: In article faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: >In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert >Dorsett) wrote: > >> In article faurecm@halcyon.com >(C. Marin Faure) writes: >> > >> >There aren't any risks, any more than there are on any flight in a modern >> >commercial jetliner. >> >> There are more risks, hence the operating and regulatory requirement imposing >> extraordinary crew, airframe, maintenance, and dispatch procedures for ETOPS >> operations. > >The original question was is an ETOPS flight riskier than a flight on a >three or four engine airplane? The answer is still no, You still have not supported your position. All you have stated is that there are more risks to control, hence the overall threat to a passenger is the same or more minimal than on a conventional airliner. As a devout believer in Keep It Simple, Stupid, I would argue that a complex network of checks and balances imposes its own risks, which can't be underestimated. The industry is not pushing ETOPS out of the box because it is inherently safer. It is pushing it because it is a cheaper way of operating airplanes. Fewer heavy components, cheaper maintenance, cheaper labor, cheaper operations. Let's not lose sight of that, eh? >First, the dust incidents. You've proved my point. ALL the engines on >the four engine planes shut down, and ALL of them were damaged to some >degree, so at that point it didn't make much difference how many there >were. In the incidents I'm familiar with, there were complex failure modes involving severe damage to hydraulic, pneumatic, and thrust systems (and in the case of the KLM 747-400, I recall, the APU, too). My point is that at least some engines were re-lit, thus providing the ability to maintain the systems. >Three and four engine airplanes don't have three or four engines simply as >a margin of safety, they have three or four engines so they can get off >the ground and STILL MEET the required margins of safety. I'm not discussing takeoff or landing. I'm discussing the real world in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. That's one BIG body of water, btw. >The SAME >margins of safety that apply to twin engine airplanes, by the way. If a >twin loses one engine on takeoff, its remaining engine has to provide >sufficient power to safely continue the takeoff. That's the rule. Ride >in a 757 sometime and you'll experience the result of having to have >engines that are capable of continuing a takeoff after an engine failure. So it's a chipper performer whenever everything's working. How's it feel when one engine goes out? >> The problem is, you lose one engine, you've lost half your redundancy. >> You lose two in a 747, you've lost half of your redundancy. You lose >> two in a 777, you're going swimming. > >The problem is that you're doing what so many people continue to do- >focusing on the engines. The engines these days are so reliable (I've >seen the current data on the numbers of in-flight shutdowns of today's >high-bypass fanjets on all airplanes regardless of the number of engines, >and believe me, it's a tiny number), that they're almost not a factor in >airplane reliability anymore. What is almost? 0.1% of operations involve a shutdown? 0.01? 0.0001% In real terms, what, 5-7 per year? The fact is, you lose an engine in a 747, you can probably proceed to destination. It's an abnormal procedure. You lose one in an ETOPS aircraft, it's a balls-out emergency until you're safe on the ground again. You have lost half your redundancy. -- 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 Oct 21 02:51:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Date: 21 Oct 96 02:51:37 Message-ID: I am very willing to believe in ETOPS safety, but only on the basis of sound logical arguments. Some of the arguments here seem unsound to me. C. Marin Faure (faurecm@halcyon.com) wrote: > The original question was is an ETOPS flight riskier than a flight on a > three or four engine airplane? The answer is still no, because whatever > additional risk there may have been because of the fact there are only two > engines has been eliminated by the reliability of today's equipment, the > extra redundancy of the ETOPS systems, and the stricter maintnenance > standards for an ETOPS airline. Are you saying that even if there is an increased ETOPS risk, it has been cancelled out by other safety improvements? Does this mean that if we kept the improvements and abandoned ETOPS, we'd be even safer? > The performance is pretty impressive. If a three or four engine airplane > loses one engine during takeoff, it has to be able to safely continue the > takeoff. Same rule. But if a four engine airplane loses TWO engines on > takeoff, it's in DEEP trouble. I was told by a 747 captain that he could continue a takeoff on two engines. But even if this is untrue, if an ETOPS plane loses two engines on takeoff, it's in MUCH DEEPER trouble, wouldn't you say? > And if the three engine airplane loses two > engine during takeoff, it's all over. Indeed. But an ETOPS plane doesn't have three engines to lose. Your point? > seen the current data on the numbers of in-flight shutdowns of today's > high-bypass fanjets on all airplanes regardless of the number of engines, > and believe me, it's a tiny number), that they're almost not a factor in > airplane reliability anymore. Can you tell us how tiny the number is? I would be very interested. And when you say they're "almost" not a factor, doesn't this mean that they ARE, actually, a factor to some small degree? These are not flippant points. I have a genuinely open mind here. But I don't find your arguments reassuring. From kls Mon Oct 21 02:51:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Date: 21 Oct 96 02:51:37 Message-ID: >> to keep them in peak operating condition. Boeing has argued that the >> evidence shows the more engines and aircraft has, the more likely there >> will be a problem with one or more of the engines, and that consequently >> 3+ engine airplanes are no more safe in that respect than 2 engine >> airplanes. > > By this argument, double or triple redundancy in instruments or control > systems should also be removed, since the more electronics or the more > hydraulic lines you have, the greater the chance there is for one of them > to fail. Two engines is double redundancy. The question to be answered for every mechanical system is how much margin of safety is needed. To answer that, engineers look at historical data, engineering models, operating environment, etc and try make the best judgement possible. And EVERY system is different. Hydraulic lines are QUITE a bit different from engines, and comparing the redundancy between the two on purely a numbers basis is pretty specious. Certainly the more duplication you have, the greater the margin of safety. But you reach a point of diminishing returns. Maybe three engines are more safe, but do they add so much more safety that they justify the added costs, etc., or is it a minor improvement that can be offset by the benefits of two engine operation? The FAA has decided that two engines are enough for ETOPS flight provided numerous steps are taken to prove their safety. Does this mean that a two-engine ETOPS plane will never have an accident resulting from engine problems? No, there are no guarantees in anything. But I've never heard of a two-engine failure on a two-engine ETOPS plane resulting in an accident, and there are far more dangers in everyday life than flying on one. - David Lawler From kls Mon Oct 21 02:51:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dlawler@aol.com (DLawler) Date: 21 Oct 96 02:51:38 Message-ID: > Your post might lead some to believe that the case Boeing presented had > only to do with the conclusion that 2 engines are no less safe than 3+. > There are some very skeptical (and in some cases ignorant) people in some > of the aviation related newsgroups. As I recall Boeing had to go through > alot of testing to prove reliability and maintainability in order to get > the approval. I worked on the third 777, WA003. For a year and half, I worked EVERY day, often 12+ hours, with almost no vacation. And I did not put even close to the max number of hours in. The 777 is one of the most tested aircraft in the world and was a joy to work on. - David Lawler From kls Mon Oct 21 02:51:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 21 Oct 96 02:51:38 Message-ID: In article , john1082@aol.com (John1082) wrote: > Fr what it's worth, the US Air Force will be buying some 757 a/c to > replace the aging VC-137 a/c in the Andrews AFB fleet. They will be used > all over the world and will have to be ETOPS qualified. Given the nature > of the fleet, just about anyone in high level gov't service could find > themselves aboard. Anyone who currrently gets a 707 would get a 757. > > Don't know the delivery date yet. The first one is on the military flight line at Boeing Field. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Oct 21 02:51:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 21 Oct 96 02:51:38 Message-ID: In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca wrote: > Scott Odle wrote: > > There are some > > very skeptical (and in some cases ignorant) people in some of the aviation > > related newsgroups. As I recall Boeing had to go through alot of testing to > > prove reliability and maintainability in order to get the approval. > > I have never had problems or fears about twin engine flights over ocean. > I recall my first flight to AKL from HNL in a 767, well before I learned > about ETOPS, and never even thought about a twin jet being "more > dangerous" than one with more engines. Perhaps my age/background > resulted in my not knowing about > some of the dangers. > > Question: Have there been historical grounds for fearing twin engined > planes over the ocean ? (eg: was there a time when JET engines often > failed during flight ?) Or are these fears purely a result of the fear > of flying by some ? The first jet engines were less reliable than the piston engines of the same era. They have steadily gotten more reliable until today engine failure can almost be ruled out as a potential problem, assuming proper maintenance and operational procedures, of course. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Oct 21 02:51:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mdw@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz (Woodhams) Subject: Re: Re[2]: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Auckland Date: 21 Oct 96 02:51:38 Message-ID: "Peter Mchugh" writes: >DLawler (dlawler@aol.com) wrote: >> will be a problem with one or more of the engines, and that consequently >> 3+ engine airplanes are no more safe in that respect than 2 engine >> airplanes. > Seems to me the question is one of what is being optimized...safety or > aircraft availability. If one wants to have fewer possible failure > points reduce redundancy...but if we'd like to keep the aircraft aloft > when failures occur, redundancy seems appealing...n'est pas? If one engine This would be true if the minimum required number of engines were the same for both types of plane. (E.g. you need only one hydrolic system, so in this case, increasing redundancy does increase safety.) The basic argument is that a tri-jet that looses two engines is just as dead as a twin that looses two engines, but assuming equal engine reliability and that engine losses are independent, loosing two engines on a tri-jet is three times as likely as loosing two engines on a twin. (There are three ways to lose two engines on a tri-jet: loose 1 and 2, 1 and 3 or 2 and 3. There is only one way to loose two engines on a twin.) If some fixed number of engines (e.g. 1) were sufficient to safely fly any plane, then more engines would indeed be safer. (A tri-jet is more likely to have one running engine than a twin, and a four engine plane even more so.) This is the case for (e.g.) hydrolic systems - you only need one, so more redundancy means more safety. Of course, my argument above is simplified. A twin with no engines is not necessarily dead (Gimli Glider). A tri on one engine is better than a twin on none. (If the crash rate of engineless twins is worse than three times higher than the crash rate of single engined tri-jet, the argument fails.) The safety of twins with one engine out should be considered (I read in a discussion of light planes that the second engine is there to take you from where the first engine fails to the crash site.) The engines on a twin may be more reliable, as they are less often used at full thrust. The hypothesised extra safety of a twin over a tri-jet does not come for free: you need 33% more available thrust on the twin to allow a single-engine-out takeoff. Disclaimer: I know something about probability. I know very little about airplanes. Michael W. From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: Volker Franzkowiak Subject: ATC-data for North Atlantic? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Regional Computing Center, University of Cologne Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:37 Message-ID: I am looking for ATC-data of flight movements over the North-Atlantic. I have only a sample dataset for Shanwick Control from DORA (CAA, UK ?) covering 8 days in October 1993. These datasets are published on a regular basis, but i can't get hold of an _official_ contact adress or person. Maybe there is corresponding data for Gander Control available? Any information would be appreciated. The data is used to calculate aircraft emission inventories for a scientific project involving mesoscale modelling of emission dispersion. -- Volker Franzkowiak e-mail : vvf@geo.uni-koeln.de Institute of geophysics und meteorology phone : 0221 / 470 4035 University of Cologne, Germany FAX : 0221 / 470 5198 From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:38 Message-ID: Various responses, since I've actually read the book. I hope that doesn't disqualify me from taking place in this discussion. In article mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) writes: > >>I just finished reading Stephen Frederick's "Unheeded Warning: the inside >>story of American Eagle Flight 4184," and was wondering if the French > >Also, I would not hesitate to set foot back in an ATR today. The boots >were extended further back on the wing, which should solve the problem. A >little too late, however, for the folks who died in Roselawn. Frederick does not believe the lengthening of the boots is adequate. He makes some specific technical points. >Also, Frederick may not be exactly an objective source. He definitely has >some axes to grind. Pretty much because the airplane tried to kill him, and did kill some of his colleagues. I'd have a big axe to grind, too. :-) s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) wrote: >Basing you decision on a book is very shortsighted. Yeah, all it indicates is that someone did their homework and went through a careful reasoning process. Can't have that. Better to get it off the cartoonish reality of the 6 o'clock news. Ah, a patch was developed. That's the end of that! No need for additional oversight. >Would it not be better to >find out what has been done to ensure the safety of the ATRs instead of jumping >to conclusions? IMHO, the troubling thing about the book has nothing to do with the ATR-72. It has to do *with* ATR, the consortium. Frederick makes some disturbing allegations as to ATR's reluctance to fix the problem, denying that a problem existed (even after a crash in Italy), exerting pressure against the Americans (influencing the French to threaten certificate action against the 737 for the two unexplained crashes), and, most especially, threatening LEGAL action against any critics. The latter, in particular, is interesting to me, because it is a tactic which Airbus has recently started using (VERY aggressively) against critics in Europe (not to mention that childish tiff with Boeing on the A340 cruise figures). Respected media sources are increasingly afraid to speak up. Nobody has the legal budget to fight a consortium with the backing of governments which have identified its interests as their interests. In Frederick's eyes, of course, the FAA is not without blame, either, for sitting on its hands while all this was going on. In fact, if there's a Blue Sky theme to drag out of this book, it has nothing to do with the ATR: it's more the failing of oversight responsibilities of the US government. Companies will do what companies will do: it's up to the government to protect the traveling public. The processes used to do so (so Frederick claimed) failed. Jean-Francois Bosc writes: >Once again probably some totally independant and unbiased point of view. If I >had to choose in which type of aircraft not to set foot, I would probably be >more worried by the amazing number of Boeing crashes during the last few years, >which were generally caused by technical failures, or remain unexplained ... Perhaps that's just a tad more honest than blaming every crash on "pilot error" and washing hands of any further need for investigation. Lastly: I would suggest that any Euronationalist apologist who is tempted to respond to this or any other post on the book just read the thing. It's a remarkable piece of work, not least in the fact that it got published. The publishing industry's very cautious these days. The author must have done an awesome sales job on the publisher's legal department to get it out there. As a work, the book has the usual human-interest fluff which is typical of works of this type. The technical arguments are better-formed than usual. And the political observations are not unique: they've all been made before. It's a fast read. Beyond that, I'll say nothing, except to note with amusement the knee- jerk responses. -- 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 Oct 21 13:31:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mattburk Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:38 Message-ID: JF responded to comments of the ATR and Airbus connection: >Once again probably some totally independant and unbiased point of view. If I >had to choose in which type of aircraft not to set foot, I would probably be >more worried by the amazing number of Boeing crashes during the last few >years, >which were generally caused by technical failures, or remain unexplained ... ... >Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr) >Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile >TOULOUSE But wait a minute, isn't Toulouse where Airbus does a lot af manufacturing? Consider the source. Matt Burke From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: m@ml.com (M Carling) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Merrill Lynch Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:38 Message-ID: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: >You lose one in an ETOPS aircraft, it's a balls-out emergency until you're >safe on the ground again. You have lost half your redundancy. No. Losing one engine of two is losing ALL your redundancy. M Carling From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Niels Sampath Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:38 Message-ID: In article avi8r@airmail.net "Kim Christensen" writes: >Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > >>I beleive that Resolute Bay (YRB - Long: 94 50W lat: 74 42N) is >>capable of handling large jets even though its runway is gravel. It >>handles 737 and 727s easily every day and I was told that a 747 has >>landed there at least once. >> > >Resolute Bay would be a good second choice. >But Alert? No, no, no, no, no! >Drop YLT from your ETOPS calculations and use BGTL instead. > Can anyone confirm that Resolute Bay is -still- gravel? -- Niels From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: Re: Re[2]: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:39 Message-ID: Woodhams (mdw@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote: > The basic argument is that a tri-jet that looses two engines is just > as dead as a twin that looses two engines, but assuming equal engine > reliability and that engine losses are independent, loosing two > engines on a tri-jet is three times as likely as loosing two engines > on a twin. (There are three ways to lose two engines on a tri-jet: > loose 1 and 2, 1 and 3 or 2 and 3. There is only one way to loose two > engines on a twin.) Since there are well documented cases of 3-engine aircraft limping home on 1 engine (a friend of mine was on such a flight!) I can't accept your basic premise that a tri-jet that loses two engines is "just as dead" as a twin in the same state. Since a single-engine failure is the more likely scenario, I prefer to look at it this way: For the sake of simplicity, suppose each engine has a 9 in 10 chance of remaining reliable over some fixed period of time. Thus the probability of NO engine failures during the fixed period will be 9/10 x 9/10 or 81 percent if we have 2 engines running, but 9/10 x 9/10 x 9/10 or about 73 percent if we have 3 engines running. (Naturally the actual figures would be far, far lower if we reduce the fixed time to one average flight, but the principle remains the same.) By subtraction, we get a 27 percent risk of one engine failing if there are three running, and a 19 percent risk if the aircraft only has two engines. Thus the risk of single-engine failure is almost 50 percent higher when we go from two engines to three. Since the loss of one engine is much more serious on a two-engine aircraft, I prefer the 50 percent extra risk on a three-engine aircraft. Of course I realize there are numerous other factors that should be taken into account in real-world situations--e.g. the accident record of the airline, most obviously. From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Endre Enyedy Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:39 Message-ID: >Your post might lead some to believe that the case Boeing presented had only to >do with the conclusion that 2 engines are no less safe than 3+. There are some >very skeptical (and in some cases ignorant) people in some of the aviation >related newsgroups....... ../snip snip......./ I distinctly recall that one of the arguments for choosing the 747 to replace the old US Presidential fleet, was" the additional security of a 4 engined airplane". just wondering: were they skeptical or ignorant? Cheers Endre From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: DC-10 Modifications after ORD Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:39 Message-ID: re Slat latch. On the MD-11, the slats (like those of the DC-10) are controlled by hydarulaic cylinders moving a drum, with cables going from the drum to the individual slats. The MD-11 fault isolation drawings shows a 'slat extend latch' on the slat cable drum. locking the slats in the extended position. How this lock gets 'unlocked' however is not all that clear and I don't have access to the actual maintenance manuals of Illustrated Part Catalog. >We also discussed the vulnerability of the three hydraulic systems, with >no control-cable backup, including their common routing through the tail >section. This gentlemen as much as predicted the UAL accident at Souix >City (which was to happen several years after our discussion). Not sure what you mean or what you would propose as an alternative, The DC-10 like all large aircrft cannot move flight control surfaces without hydraulics. It makes little difference how the hydraulics are commanded, no hydraulics no movement. In the DC-10/MD-11, the hyrdaulics are commanded either by cables connected to the primary flight controls, or through commands from the autoflight system to the hyrdaulic actuators (in which case to cables causes the controls in the flight deck to move). The two are combined in such a manner that the cable (i.e. flight crew input) can over ride the flight control computer. So the statement of 'no control cable back-up' is a non sequitur as the control cables cannot, and were never intended to couple the flight crew directly to the control surfaces. Doesn't work in big airplanes from any manufacture. Crews arems are not big enough :) If you want to aircraft which have directly driven control surfaces, stick with older designs in smaller aircraft. As for common routing through the tail section - how is one to command the control surfaces located in the tail unless the hyrdaulics and associated control cables are routed there? The elevator for example, has all three hydraulic systems moving actuators. If either one or two systems fails, the surfaces can be moved by the third. If one fails in a 'hardover' position, the others can either move the surfaces against it or 'out vote' the failed surface by voting three surfaces agains the failed one. The design at this level was not at fault. It was the routing of the hydraulic lines combined with the lack of 'hydraulic fuses' to control a ruptured hyrdaulic system (which have been added by the way) which related to the loss of hyrdaulic fluid through the ruptured lines. Brian From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: -z- Subject: Re: DC-10 Modifications after ORD Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Altopia Corp. - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net Reply-To: trsmith@prado.com Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:39 Message-ID: Jim Messina wrote: > > I read the long NTSB report posted here two months ago about the AA DC-10 > crash at O'Hare years ago. I am still uncertain what modifications were > done to the DC-10 fleet as a result. Can someone summarize them. Thanks > > Jim Messina As far as physical modifications to the airplane: #1: Two (2) fasteners which are located on the upper spar web of the wing pylons, immediately forward of the aft pylon-wing mount bearing, were converted to 'countersunk' fasteners instead of protuding head 'huck-bolts' ( or the modern equivalent 'hi-loks'). This was to avoid damage to the upper spar web and aft pylon bulkhead just in case, in a future pylon installation, the aft end of the pylon should travel upward and contact the wing mount clevis. #2: Anti-retract valves were placed in the hydraulic return lines of the outboard ( left and right ) slat actuators, immediately outboard of each wing pylon. This prevents sudden draining of the actuators in case another pylon tears out the lines upon break-away. The drain prevention prohibits the slats from retracting into the wing. Non-physical changes: Many changes to the methods of pylon removal, installation. Perhaps some flight emergency procedures training ( not sure on this one ). -thomas- From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Innes Subject: Re: DC-10 Modifications after ORD Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:40 Message-ID: Mark Ingram wrote: > >On 12 Oct 1996, Jim Messina wrote: >> I read the long NTSB report posted here two months ago about the AA DC-10 >> crash at O'Hare years ago. I am still uncertain what modifications were >> done to the DC-10 fleet as a result. Can someone summarize them. Thanks >Years ago I asked almost the same question of a former MD engineer who >taught my DC-10 systems ground school. I don't remember everything >he said, but he did say that one of the main changes was in how the >leading edge devices are "locked" into position. > >I put quotes around the word locked, above, because unlike most (all?) >Boeing jets, which indeed use a mechanical locking mechanism which >cannot be unlocked in the absence of hydraulic pressure, the DC-10 has >always used *hydraulic* locking of LED's. > >In the American accident, a rupture of the main hydraulic lines to the >LED's in the left wing caused the devices to retract. So, the design was >modified such that the LED's were truly locked after extension, right? The design was actually modified after a overrun incident in MIA. The system is actually "hydraulic balance relief valves", they are located as close as possible to the outboard slat drive actuators, and well outboard of the engine attachment area around the pylon. > According to my source, no: The *hydraulic* locking was only moved >closer to the actuating cylinders. The LED's (according to my instructor) >could still suffer an unwanted retraction under certain circumstances. A second change after MIA, was to modify the cable system controlling tthe two hydraulic vavles which control the outboard slats. This mod will prevent slat retraction even if the command cable is damaged. >We also discussed the vulnerability of the three hydraulic systems, with >no control-cable backup, including their common routing through the >tail section. This gentlemen as much as predicted the UAL accident at >Souix City (which was to happen several years after our discussion). The feeling about Souix City amongts some of us is that the real problem was never fixed, the powerplant. The CF6-6D has had a terrible history of uncontained failures. The close proximity of hydraulic systems is a problem on alot of aircraft designs, anybody remember JAL in Osaka? Just some thoughts, Regards Jim Innes From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: B737 Info Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Nobody but me Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:40 Message-ID: In article , JIM ZIARNO wrote: >Does anyone know ?? >What is the relative fuselage movement over a 3foot area on the top >centerline of a B737-500 due to: > 1. A/C Dynamics (In Flight and during Landing) > 2. Pressure differentials (0 to 40,000 ft) > 737-500 doesn't get to 40,000 ft. The service ceiling of the 737 classic is 35,000 ft. The 737-600/700/800 cruises at 40,000 ft. From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Sterile Cockpit ???? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:40 Message-ID: > What is the "sterile cockpit" rule. Something to do with vasectomies? I believe that the electrically powered seat mover in the cockpit of the 747 does not have a safety stop for forward movement, with the result that a careless pilot might make painful contact with the control column, a feature which has earned the 747 the nickname "ball-breaker". :-) 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 Mon Oct 21 13:31:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stdhuff1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (dg huffer) Subject: Re: Sterile Cockpit ???? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Put that in your smoke and pipe it Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:40 Message-ID: In article , speedpuppy wrote: >AuDMCL wrote: >> >> What is the "sterile cockpit" rule. Something to do with vasectomies? > >faa rule states that no "non-pertanent" (sorry spelling) communication >will occur during aircraft operations below 10,000 ft.....this includes >from brake release (taxi) to brake set (at gate) When I fly on FedEx planes, that is the only time they leave the cockpit door opened. Why? And do they do this on passenger planes too? -- dg huffer From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Sterile Cockpit ???? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:40 Message-ID: The sterile cockpit is mostly a response to the FAA/CAA/NTSB et al, who insist on recording every word said in the cockpit of our airplanes. The rule simply states that from Engine Start/Pushback until 10,000' (some use 20,000') and from the same altitude until engine shutdown, no conversation is to take place on the flight deck that dosen't directly relate to the safety of flight. Since the voice recorders only record 30 min of time, that is usually good enough to make sure we don't get harrassed (sp?) for talking about the ball game or whatever. TheFNG From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: looking for VC-10 military designator Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:40 Message-ID: Markus, The RAF has several types of VC-10s in service. The first ones were called VC-10 C.Mk.1. This was the basic transport version. They have recently been retrofitted with wingtip refueling pods and are now called C.Mk.1K. Tankers in RAF service are called VC-10 K.Mk.2, Mk.3 and Mk.4. The Mk.2 is based on the BOAC Standard VC-10 (short fuselage) and the Mk.3 and 4 are based on the long fuselage Super VC-10. The K.3s were the former East African Airways aircraft, and the K.4s were BOAC Supers. The aircraft you saw was a K.Mk.4, formerly BOAC's G-ASGA. It first flew on 7 May 1964, and was converted to a VC-10 K.Mk.4 tanker in 1991. If you need any more info, let me know. I love VC-10s :) Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: looking for VC-10 military designator Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:40 Message-ID: Markus Buttinger wrote: >Is anyone able to tell me the military designator for the >VC-10 aircraft (I guess it's a Vickers) that is still in use >by the Royal Air Force? >I saw one if those (callsign: ZD 230) in Iraklion/Crete Island >on Tuesday. It's a totally brown a/c with a big white 'K' in >the tail. - Anyone out there with info on what this could be - >(tanker/mines searcher, etc.)? According to my Jane's, the tanker is called VC10K mark 2 or for the Super VC10, VC10K Mark 3 or 4. There's also a picture of an RAF aircraft they identify as a VC10 C1. From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: awalton@netcomuk.co.uk (Alex Walton) Subject: Re: looking for VC-10 military designator Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM Internet Ltd. Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:41 Message-ID: Markus Buttinger wrote: >I hope this is the right newsgroup to post my question... As good as anywhere. >Is anyone able to tell me the military designator for the >VC-10 aircraft (I guess it's a Vickers) that is still in use >by the Royal Air Force? The VC-10 was built by the British Aircraft Corporation, although you are partly right as this was formed by a merger of Vickers and several others. Military designator? What do you mean (or am I being dense?) >The civil use of this aircraft has been disontiniued I guess >about 20 years ago and the RAF - to my knowledge - are the only >ones that still fly this plane. Its about ten years since VC-10s flew commercially. >I saw one if those (callsign: ZD 230) in Iraklion/Crete Island >on Tuesday. It's a totally brown a/c with a big white 'K' in >the tail. - Anyone out there with info on what this could be - >(tanker/mines searcher, etc.)? The only VC-10s in RAF service are tankers (K2, K3 & K4) and cargo aircraft (C1). The big white K on the tail is the aircraft id. 'K' (serial no ZD230) is a tanker belonging to 101 sqn., RAF Brize Norten. Alex Walton ----------- From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: Matt Clonfero Subject: Re: looking for VC-10 military designator Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rest Reply-To: matt@aetherem.demon.co.uk Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:41 Message-ID: In message Markus Buttinger wrote: > I hope this is the right newsgroup to post my question... Sure is. > Is anyone able to tell me the military designator for the > VC-10 aircraft (I guess it's a Vickers) that is still in use > by the Royal Air Force? 10 Squadron RAF Brize Norton 10 x VC10 C.1 / C.1K 101 Squadron RAF Brize Norton 9 x VC10 K.2 / K.3 1 x VC10 K.4 The C.1 is the cargo only version, others are the various marks of tankers and tanker/transports. The RAF still uses the name VC10 and Super VC10. > I saw one if those (callsign: ZD 230) in Iraklion/Crete Island > on Tuesday. It's a totally brown a/c with a big white 'K' in > the tail. - Anyone out there with info on what this could be - > (tanker/mines searcher, etc.)? Well, the C.1s are cargo birds; the C.1K is a dual-role tanker-transport and the K.2 to K.4 are, in the main, tankers. Aetherem Vincere Matt. -- =============================================================================== Matt Clonfero (matt@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human, My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy. speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com Subject: re: looking for VC-10 military designator Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:41 Message-ID: Markus Buttinger wrote:- >Is anyone able to tell me the military designator for the >VC-10 aircraft (I guess it's a Vickers) that is still in use >by the Royal Air Force? >The civil use of this aircraft has been disontiniued I guess >about 20 years ago and the RAF - to my knowledge - are the only >ones that still fly this plane. >I saw one if those (callsign: ZD 230) in Iraklion/Crete Island >on Tuesday. It's a totally brown a/c with a big white 'K' in >the tail. - Anyone out there with info on what this could be - >(tanker/mines searcher, etc.)? AFAIK military VC-10s are still called VC-10s. They were designed by Vickers (later BAe) and the first ones appeared in about 1962. Various (4) VC-10s are on display at Air Museums in the UK (Duxford for one). Most are now with the RAF, some were scrapped, two crashed (Lagos and Addis Ababa), one was blown up (Dawson Field - PLO). Another was also blown up by terrorists but I forget where. In civil service the VC-10 was popular with passengers but the tail engines made the structure much heavier so it was not as economic as other aircraft. Fuel burn per hour was the same as a Tristar but of course with less passengers. The RAF originally ordered VC-10s for troop movement and these ones are white - AFAIK. The brown ones (tan) are the air refueling tankers. These are converted civilian VC-10s from BA, Gulf Airways and EAAC. They have a refueling point under the tail and one under each wing. They use the probe and drogue system - not the flying boom as used by the USAF. There's a probe on the nose for buddy refueling. This is a VC-10 web-site:- http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye/vc10.html From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: rlorenz@lpl.arizona.edu (Ralph Lorenz) Subject: Re: looking for VC-10 military designator Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The University of Arizona Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:41 Message-ID: Markus Buttinger (markus-b@ping.at) wrote: : Is anyone able to tell me the military designator for the : VC-10 aircraft (I guess it's a Vickers) that is still in use : by the Royal Air Force? I think they're just called 'VC-10's : I saw one if those (callsign: ZD 230) in Iraklion/Crete Island : on Tuesday. It's a totally brown a/c with a big white 'K' in : the tail. - Anyone out there with info on what this could be - : (tanker/mines searcher, etc.)? They may well be used as tankers, I think, but more likely as a simple transport aircraft for the UK government. A few years ago I got a ride in one (RAF Brize Norton to Washington Dulles) - a lot like a regular airline flight, bar the considerably enhanced airport security at the UK end, lack of in-flight movie, backwards-facing seats, uninspiring catering, cargo pallets with netting in the back of the cabin and an all-male passenger load, many with short haircuts. At check in, I almost got the impression the empire was still going strong - RAF appeared to do regular transport flights to Hong Kong, Dulles, Belize, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc Ralph Lorenz Lunar and Planetary Lab University of Arizona s From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:42 Message-ID: David K. Cornutt wrote: > > In article Keir Wallace, > keir@indo.net.id writes: > >The aircon pack inlets below the wing root also have articulated > >doors on the 73 but rather than vortex generators they have slush deflector > >doors, just to keep the parts count up. ;-) What you are looking at is the ECS inlet (air pack inlet) on the 737. Usually, you throttle the flow into an inlet by changing the exhaust area, but someone at Boeing decided to throttle the inlet instead, which never works too well. Lockheed made the same mistake on the L1011 ECS inlet. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Oct 21 13:31:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: 747s In The Movies 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 Oct 96 13:31:42 Message-ID: etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) writes: >But I'm very impressed by the paint job on N703CK. It looks like the >real thing (even down to the 28000 tail number). I'm guessing that the >plane is involved in another movie or TV shoot. What's a ballpark >figure for the cost of painting a 747? Large, iffen it is 'real' paint. But I bet they used something water-based that would hose off afterwards. Otherwise, they have to paint it twice...... Further, Hollywood is a master of the resolution game. When you start looking closely, esp. in person, you see much the $7.50 ticketholder never does. Remember, there's lots of grain and even more cutting-room floor between that prop and the screen. -- 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 Oct 21 13:31:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: Re: 747s In The Movies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The American University Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:42 Message-ID: In article etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) writes: >Some interesting activities involving 747s seem to be going on at LAX >right now. > >First, for the last two days a Tower Air 747 has been participating in >the filming of a movie or TV show. (snip) Also, >It looks like Kalitta/American International Airways has a 747 (N703CK) >painted up as a replica of the VC-25A used as Air Force One. These planes are involved in the shooting of a new Harrison Ford movie called "Air Force One" (or "AFO"). The plot involves the hijacking of Air Force One with the President aboard and the subsequent rescue operation. This I know from talking to the film crew; they were here in Cleveland shooting the opening para-trooper sequence several weeks ago at Severance Hall, where the Cleveland Orchestra plays -- it was thought to look a lot like an Eastern European palace. The movie is slated for release next summer. And according to the crew, no, it is definitely NOT cheap to rent a 747, even to taxi it around, or to do a full paint job on one. I am sure someone will provide the exact figure... From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) Subject: Re: 747s In The Movies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:42 Message-ID: In etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) writes: > >Some interesting activities involving 747s seem to be going on at LAX >right now. > >Watching this filmmaking activity brings a couple of questions to >mind: first, what's the ballpark cost of renting a 747 for a day? The >747 is running on its own power (it's not being towed), so there are >fuel costs involved, as well as a crew to operate the plane. It couldn't cost much more than what it cost to set up and film a small portion of "Continental Divide" (with John Belushi). The film company helicopter ferried equipment from our parking lot at the ski area up to the top of an adjoining mountain and set it up. This consumed all day Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Filming was Thursday morning and the rest of that day and all day Friday was devoted to bringing the equipment down again. At a party Thursday night at one of the Inns, someone asked one of the film people if they had gotten what they came for and was told the scenery was just what they wanted. When asked if we would be able to recognize the mountain in the movie, we were told we would be able to identify the portion of the film taken up there. Asked how long the sequence(s) would be on film, the answer was that, after editing, it should run between 90 and 120 SECONDS. Ever wonder why movies cost so much??? >But I'm very impressed by the paint job on N703CK. It looks like the >real thing (even down to the 28000 tail number). I'm guessing that >the plane is involved in another movie or TV shoot. What's a ballpark >figure for the cost of painting a 747? When I worked for an airline at Boeing Field in Seattle, a TV-movie company rented one of our B-707's for a sequence in the made-for-TV film about JFK. The film starred James Franciscus and one of the gals from "Charlie's Angels". The plane was towed across the airport to the paint shop at Boeing Company and one side was painted a la Air Force One. It was towed to the terminal for the shooting where they drove a set of stairs up to the plane (marked "Air France") for the simulated arrival of JFK and Jackie at Orly Field in Paris. After the stars exited the plane and went down the steps, the plane was towed back to our ramp. Another 90 to 120 second bit on film. Oh - cost of the paint job for the one side of the plane $30,000. I always kidded our company president afterward that we could be making money with the plane even though it was slated to be made into aluminum cans. We could charge people ten bucks a throw to have their pictures taken coming off Air Force One and we wouldn't even have to have any fuel in the tanks or the engines running. He was too narrow-minded to go along with my suggestion though. Lou. From kls Mon Oct 21 13:31:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: 747s In The Movies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Your Organization Date: 21 Oct 96 13:31:42 Message-ID: >It looks like Kalitta/American International Airways has a 747 (N703CK) >painted up as a replica of the VC-25A used as Air Force One. This plane >arrived late this afternoon (Wednesday). >But I'm very impressed by the paint job on N703CK. It looks like the >real thing (even down to the 28000 tail number). I'm guessing that the >plane is involved in another movie or TV shoot. What's a ballpark >figure for the cost of painting a 747? Airliners magazine recently had a photo of a Concorde painted up in a new Pepsi paint scheme for a 10 day promotional tour in Europe. The article said that the paint job cost $300,000. From kls Mon Oct 28 03:04:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdouglas@vaxxine.com (James M. Douglas) Subject: L-1011-200 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Vaxxine's Internet Access Date: 28 Oct 96 03:04:41 Message-ID: Can anyone tell me the MTOW of a L1011-200 out 7500' @ sealevel at ISA +15C? Thanks, James Douglas jdouglas@vaxxine.com From kls Mon Oct 28 03:04:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dr. Peter G. Boswell" Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dept of Political Science, MUN Date: 28 Oct 96 03:04:42 Message-ID: I was going to respond to some of the responses to my original post, but Robert Dorsett has stated just about everything that I intended to. I would second all of his comments, especially those concerning the combative and denial attitude of Aerospatiale. I, too, think Frederick did an admirable job in bringing the problem to general attention. Further, he seems quite adamant (and with considerable evidence) that the larger de-icing boots do not solve the ATR's potential problems in icing conditions. Peter From kls Mon Oct 28 03:04:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU (Pablo Wangermann) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Laboratory for Control and Automation Princeton University Date: 28 Oct 96 03:04:42 Message-ID: In article , Robert Dorsett wrote: >Various responses, since I've actually read the book. I hope that doesn't >disqualify me from taking place in this discussion. > >In article mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) writes: >> [Lots of discussion snipped, but I had to comment on this] > >IMHO, the troubling thing about the book has nothing to do with the ATR-72. >It has to do *with* ATR, the consortium. Frederick makes some disturbing >allegations as to ATR's reluctance to fix the problem, denying that a problem >existed (even after a crash in Italy), exerting pressure against the >Americans (influencing the French to threaten certificate action against >the 737 for the two unexplained crashes), and, most especially, threatening >LEGAL action against any critics. > Woah there! Let's be careful. Before I start, I haven't read the book, and I'm not defending ATR, but they do have a right to feel that the FAA was not quite fair in their handling of the issue. The ATR42/72 did pass all the FAA icing test requirements during certification. All planes out there have to pass these tests. However, the icing conditions that caused the crash (supercooled droplets) is pretty rare and is not part of the certification requirement. Now, it is clear given the accident and a couple of other incidents that the ATRs need better de-icing to cope with these conditions. However, I've seen no reports on whether any other aircraft have had control problems that were due to similar icing conditions. I believe the FAA or NTSB mused about testing other types of aircraft under similar conditions, but with the icing tanker now decomissioned I'd say the chances of that happening in the near future are minimal. I wouldn't trust _any_ prop in those icing conditions. (I think this was part of ATR's argument - the pilots knowingly flew the plane in severe icing conditions - a definite no no.) As for the 737s, I bet if a plane that a) wasn't a Boeing b) didn't have over 2000 units in service had 2 unexplained crashes the FAA would have grounded it by now. It took another near accident (the Eastwind incident) to kick the authorities into gear and actually talk about making changes to the rudder system. Conclusion: yup, ATR should have just got on with improving the icing system, but some of their beefs about the US authorities are partially justified. Oh, and you shouldn't feel safe in any turboprop flying through supercooled droplets. John Wangermann From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: World Bank Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:31 Message-ID: MikeM727 wrote: > >I just finished reading Stephen Frederick's "Unheeded Warning: the inside > >story of American Eagle Flight 4184," and was wondering if the French > >manufacturer of the ATR-42 and ATR-72, Aerospatiale, is part of the > >consortium which builds the Airbus series? > > ATR is not Airbus per se, but it is made by a partnership of two of the > members of the Airbus consortium. The plane rolls off the factory floor > in Tolouse (sp?) France, right next to Airbus aircraft. Yes, ATRs are built in Toulouse, and yes, Aerospatiale is part of Airbus. But the Italian partner in ATR is not in the Airbus consortium. Stefano From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:32 Message-ID: >Once again probably some totally independant and unbiased point of view. >If I had to choose in which type of aircraft not to set foot, I would >probably be more worried by the amazing number of Boeing crashes during >the last few years, which were generally caused by technical failures, or >remain unexplained .. The number of crashes by an aircraft maker is not as relevant as whether they are all triggered by related causes. Besides, when your products make up over 50% of the total world fleet, statistically you are going to have more crashes. If you compare 3000+ 737s to about 300 (I have no idea what this number should be: just a guess) DC-10s then you should have an idea that the DC-10 is (as Karl calls them) a death crate and the 737 is a quality product. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:32 Message-ID: When the American Eagle ATR72 crashed, there was a comment made on Canadian television about the ATR42s in Canada having had additional de-icing equipment installed (or existing ones improved, I forget) and that they had been operating for years without problems. Can anyone confirm or deny that Transport Canada had placed more stringent rules on the ATR42 then had the US DOT/FAA with regards to de-icing ? From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:32 Message-ID: In article , rdd@netcom.com says... >>Basing you decision on a book is very shortsighted. > >Yeah, all it indicates is that someone did their homework and went through >a careful reasoning process. Can't have that. Better to get it off the >cartoonish reality of the 6 o'clock news. Ah, a patch was developed. >That's the end of that! No need for additional oversight. Was the author or you directly involved in the modification the you call a patch. Don't bother to answer because I know the answer is that you were not. I know this since I work in a ACO that was directly involved in the approval of the modification. A careful reasoning process is no match for extensive ground and flight tests under very controlled conditions. So you can make all the claims you want about it just being a patch, but that still won't make your comments or the authors claims any more factual. If you don't bother (and from your posts it appears you did not even think about trying) to substantiate his or your so-called claims before citing it as fact, the only thing that you accomplish is to tarnish your own credibility. From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Bosc Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:32 Message-ID: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: > Jean-Francois Bosc writes: > >Once again probably some totally independant and unbiased point of view. If I > >had to choose in which type of aircraft not to set foot, I would probably be > >more worried by the amazing number of Boeing crashes during the last few years, > >which were generally caused by technical failures, or remain unexplained ... > > Perhaps that's just a tad more honest than blaming every crash on "pilot > error" and washing hands of any further need for investigation. > > Lastly: I would suggest that any Euronationalist apologist who is tempted > to respond to this or any other post on the book just read the thing. It's > a remarkable piece of work, not least in the fact that it got > published. May I connect the fact that 99% of the contributors on this group are American with the other fact that comments appearing in "Airbus vs Boeing" threads are often single-sided, and sometimes obviously biased ? My (limited) "technical" knowledge comes down to this : airlines still buy Airbus and ATR, which seems to indicate that they are run by idiots. Quite surprisingly however, these airlines usually don't collapse shortly after making such a bad move. Even more surprisingly, as far as I know the number of Airbus or ATR crashes is not particularly high. However, if some "USnationalist" can provide me with clear significant stats showing that I should better not set foot on a European aircraft, I'd be glad to support the comment I was replying to, and advice all my friends and relatives to carefully select only all-Boeing airlines. Sincerely, JF -- Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr) Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile TOULOUSE, FRANCE From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:33 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Bosc wrote: >May I connect the fact that 99% of the contributors on this group are American >with the other fact that comments appearing in "Airbus vs Boeing" threads are >often single-sided, and sometimes obviously biased ? You may conclude anything you like, even in utter disregard of the facts. Since you prefer your emotional tirades to cold reality, you most likely won't be interested in the next paragraph. However, others might find the numbers interesting and useful in evaluating the quality of your argument. (Does the DGAC do such shoddy work in its accident investigations?) For the first nine months of this year, 2014 articles were posted to sci.aeronautics.airliners by 720 individuals. 1536 articles or 76.3% came from 531 (73.8%) e-mail addresses with domains which could be associated with the US. An additional 208 articles (10.3%) were posted from 73 (10.1%) e-mail addresses in the de, fr, and uk domains, representing the countries of the three largest partners in Airbus. (The smallest partner, CASA, is from Spain. None of the posts came from within the es domain.) In France, does 76 equal 99? >My (limited) "technical" knowledge comes down to this : airlines still buy >Airbus and ATR, which seems to indicate that they are run by idiots. If you say so. >Quite surprisingly however, these airlines usually don't collapse >shortly after making such a bad move. A less hysterical view would be that they are run by financial folks who go for the cheapest deal. That's what kept the DC-10 in the game. The stockholders came out ahead, and perhaps most passengers came out slightly ahead by paying lower fares. Those who weren't killed, that is. >However, if some "USnationalist" can provide me with clear significant stats >showing that I should better not set foot on a European aircraft ... While you're apparently too irrational for it to have sunk in, nobody has ever suggested anything like this. The pre-A320 Airbus models are fine planes, as are many other European planes. In many regards the A320 is a decent plane, too. One of the biggest pieces of junk in the air (or splattered in a field) is the US-built DC-10 -- not a European plane at all. Your own whining about nationalism is baseless, much as you might like to think otherwise to provide your vacuous arguments with a crutch. Now, since this is supposed to be a technical group, will you please stop whining and try contributing some substantive arguments based on at least an attempt at facts? I've been extra tolerant of some of the pro-Airbus ranting, in hopes that some more technically savvy Airbus supporters might not feel threatened, but that hasn't happened and I'm growing wearing of rubbish. So are many readers of the newsgroup. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:33 Message-ID: In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >IMHO, the troubling thing about the book has nothing to do with the ATR-72. >It has to do *with* ATR, the consortium. Frederick makes some disturbing >allegations as to ATR's reluctance to fix the problem, denying that a >problem existed (even after a crash in Italy), This is true. I flew for a regional airline that flew ATR's (though I flew the Brasilia). It was common knowledge that the ATR had a problem of forming ice behind the boots., well before the Eagle accident. ATR added vortex generators to the upper wing surface forward of the ailerons. This does not eliminate the source of the problem. The ATR is the only airplane that I am aware of that has different (higher) published approach speeds for icing conditions. If that's not an admission of a problem, I don't know what is. >Frederick does not believe the lengthening of the boots is adequate. He >makes some specific technical points. Could you make these technical points to us, if not too lengthy? >Jean-Francois Bosc writes: >>Once again probably some totally independant and unbiased point of view. >>If I had to choose in which type of aircraft not to set foot, I would >>probably be more worried by the amazing number of Boeing crashes during >>the last few years, which were generally caused by technical failures, >>or remain unexplained ... AMAZING number of Boeing crashes? Please cite an amazing number of examples. Two (2) whole unexplained crashed of the 737, the most ubiquitous commercial aircraft in the world...a much better record than ATR. (Changes have been made to the 737 in response.) What other Boeing crashed were caused by technical failures? A crew flies a perfectly good 757 into a mountain? Another crew takes a perfectly flyable 757 into the water 'cause one of three pitot tubes was clogged? Can Boeing be blamed for these? Way to early to be making conclusions from the AeroPeru or TWA accidents. Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 -------------------------------------------- If it's not Boeing, I'm not going! -------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:33 Message-ID: In T.A. Heppenheimer's TURBULENT SKIES book (a history of commercial aviation, I highly recommend) there is a picture of an L-1011 with 4 engines. Incidentally it was painted in Lockheed colors (I think) so it was probably certified right off the bat. How is the extra engine mounted? How long does it take to mount/unmount? How much extra does it cost to haul a spare around? Are airlines allowed to do during normal commercial flights? If so, how often does it really happen? I don't expect to see any 777s carrying a spare anytime in the future. :-) This does bring up an interesting point, though. In one of my books on the 777 (the one by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner, I think, but it could be in 21st Century Jet's limited photo section) there is a picture of a 777 engine (I can't remember which brand: I can't find either book) being loaded into a monster Antanov for transport. This makes me think that transporting the monster engines for this airliner is rather difficult (big around as a 737: doubters may look in the Guy Norris book; there is a picture of a British Airways 737 (the River Eire, I believe) next to a GE90 equipped 777. Wow.) Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:33 Message-ID: >Are airlines allowed to do during normal commercial flights? The one time I've seen an aircraft carrying a spare as a United 747-122. I first noticed it at a gate at SFO, and shortly there- after a tug pushed it back, then towed it to what was then the United Service Center where the spare was quickly surrounded by scaffolding and workers. While I didn't actually see it arrive at the gate and disgorge a load of passengers, I don't know why it would have been there otherwise. >a 777 engine (I can't remember which brand: I can't find either >book) being loaded into a monster Antanov for transport. I believe Pratt has shipped the PW4000 versions for the 777 on An-124 freighters, though I don't know if that's standard practice or not. (Smaller PW4000s aren't a problem for more convetional freighters.) >This makes me think that transporting the monster engines for this >airliner is rather difficult The GE90 is designed to ship in two pieces -- fan and core -- for exactly this reason. The fan is still an awfully big piece. (Lest some of our more sensitive Europeans feel slighted, I haven't mentioned the Trent simply because I have no idea how it is shipped.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Manlove Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:34 Message-ID: Michael.F.Lechnar@boeing.com wrote: > Spare engine carriage was developed due to the lack of 747 main deck > freighters during the early days. No narrow body freighter could > accomodate a built-up big fan engine. The combination of more > wide body freighters and an increase in engine reliability has made > spare engine carriage a rare event. The 707 regularly carried a spare engine (turbojet much small than hi bypass) on trans pacific routes. The engines were much less reliable and if an engine malfunctioned enroute to Tokyo they'd get there on three, replaced the bad with the good, return with the bad one for overhaul. The original turbojets rarely went more than 100 hrs without a malfunction. From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: ETOPS for north pole routes Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:34 Message-ID: Niels Sampath wrote: > Can anyone confirm that Resolute Bay is -still- gravel? I was there in 1990. It was definitely Gravel. So is everything else in the village. This is built on permafrost. Paving the runways isn't an easy task. To give you an example: The concrete floor in the aircraft hanger has refrigiration equipment under it to prevent the ground under the building from melting (which would cause the building to sink). Black tar on a runway would require insulation between it and the ground to prevent thaw and repairs would be expensive. Repairs on gravel runway is a lot easier/quicker and cheaper. For the few weeks of the year where there is no snow, I am not sure there would be any benefits in paving the runway. From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Subject: More ETOPS - Midway Island Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:34 Message-ID: I read earlier today in one of the trade mags that Midway Island might soon be available for ETOPS use. John Gezelius Alexandria, VA From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@nilenet.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NileNet, Ltd. Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:34 Message-ID: In article , Charles Platt wrote: >I was told by a 747 captain that he could continue a takeoff on two >engines. But even if this is untrue, if an ETOPS plane loses two engines >on takeoff, it's in MUCH DEEPER trouble, wouldn't you say? Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? It seems to me that if you have two engines die, no matter how many you have, they are all likely to go. -- Keith Barr COMM AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI AERO/EIT barr@aerosys-eng.com AeroSys Engineering, Inc. http://www.nilenet.com/~barr Westminster, Colorado, USA Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: ETOPS Summary: Expires: References: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NileNet, Ltd. Keywords: Cc: In article , Charles Platt wrote: >I was told by a 747 captain that he could continue a takeoff on two >engines. But even if this is untrue, if an ETOPS plane loses two engines >on takeoff, it's in MUCH DEEPER trouble, wouldn't you say? Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? It seems to me that if you have two engines die, no matter how many you have, they are all likely to go. -- Keith Barr COMM AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI AERO/EIT barr@aerosys-eng.com AeroSys Engineering, Inc. http://www.nilenet.com/~barr Westminster, Colorado, USA Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: ETOPS Summary: Expires: References: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NileNet, Ltd. Keywords: Cc: In article , Charles Platt wrote: >I was told by a 747 captain that he could continue a takeoff on two >engines. But even if this is untrue, if an ETOPS plane loses two engines >on takeoff, it's in MUCH DEEPER trouble, wouldn't you say? Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? It seems to me that if you have two engines die, no matter how many you have, they are all likely to go. -- Keith Barr COMM AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI AERO/EIT barr@aerosys-eng.com AeroSys Engineering, Inc. http://www.nilenet.com/~barr Westminster, Colorado, USA From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:35 Message-ID: >I distinctly recall that one of the arguments for choosing >the 747 to replace the old US Presidential fleet, was" the >additional security of a 4 engined airplane". >just wondering: were they skeptical or ignorant? Both Actually, with entourage that accompanies the President, the additional comms required, the desire for a small dispensary and the "prestige and granduer" factor that goes along with a 747, there really wasn't much discussion. Form a logistical standpoint, the DC-10 would have made more sense because we have approximately 50 in the fleet as the KC-10. John Gezelius Alexandria, VA From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lou@alumnae.caltech.edu (Louis K. Scheffer) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:35 Message-ID: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >> >>The original question was is an ETOPS flight riskier than a flight on a >>three or four engine airplane? The answer is still no, I suspect the answer to this involves procedures and cockpit automation and human factors much more than engine reliability. I know the limiting factor on most redundant computer hardware is the human element once a failure has occured. Suddenly, the person in charge has to do things differently, using less well rehearsed procedures, and the odds of a mistake rise dramatically. There are many classic cases of this; where one engine goes bad, and the pilot then shuts off the good engine (thinking it's the bad one), or where a landing gear warning light goes on, and the crew tries to fix this while the plane flies into the ground, and so on. I would suspect that a modern ETOPS plane, where the automated cockpit does the 'right thing' upon an engine failure (where the right thing was thought through by experts who were not under time pressure), is probably safer than a 4 engine plane where an engine failure needs to be treated with a long checklist and modified procedures. So it is possible that both of these statements are true - that one specfic failure mode (all engines failing) is more likely on an ETOPS flight, but that the overall risk is lower. Since the human factors elements are very hard to quantify, this is very hard to prove one way or another. -Lou Scheffer From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011 Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:35 Message-ID: David Lednicer wrote: >What you are looking at is the ECS inlet (air pack inlet) on the > 737. Usually, you throttle the flow into an inlet by changing the > exhaust area, but someone at Boeing decided to throttle the inlet > instead, which never works too well. What's being talked about here is the RAM air system of the ECS. The air pack inlet can't be seend from outside the airplane. The RAM air system on the 737-200 and -300 modultates the inlet and exit doors to maintain 230 F at the compressor discharge. On the ground the doors are wide open. There is a deflector in front of the inlet door that opens (extends) for ground operations. >Lockheed made the same mistake on the L1011 ECS inlet. They may have come from the factory with operating inlet doors, but they also came with operating exhaust doors. The inlet doors have been deactivated and airflow through the RAM duct is controlled by the exhaust doors. From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bobby <70263.237@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:35 Message-ID: >Usually, you throttle the flow into an inlet by changing >the exhaust area, but someone at Boeing decided to throttle >the inlet instead, which never works too well. A320 does both. From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: John Harvie Subject: Ryanair 737's to be flying billboards Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:35 Message-ID: I read today that Jaguar is paying an estimated 100,000 pounds to have its leaping "big cat" mascot painted on the fuselages of 11 Ryanair 737's. Ryanair said it was the first British airline to follow the lead of American carriers that had made their aircraft into "flying billboards." Anyone know which US airlines are doing this, who's paying to advertise there, and is it catching on? I am hoping that airline fleets don't become like Boston's city buses, painted over to look like giant donut boxes, pay phones, movie posters, etc..... John Harvie, Firefly Network, Inc., visit: http://www.firefly.com 17 Sellers Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, 617.234.5479, Fax 234.5414 Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. :) From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: dstc47 Subject: Re: ATC-data for North Atlantic? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Indigo Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:35 Message-ID: Have a look at the Irish Aviaion web Site. It has some data of interest to you but is not a full answer to your problem. From kls Mon Oct 28 03:06:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Why not a full length upper deck on a 747-600X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:36 Message-ID: P. Wezeman wrote: >On 12 Oct 1996, Jim Young wrote: >> >> The really big reason is aerodynamics. A little things called area rule >> (look it up in any basic aero book or email me if you want an explanation) >> plays a big part in the drag of an airplane. When Boeing originally >> streched the 747-200 to the longer upper deck on the -300, the drag of the >> airplane actually went down, even though there was more fuselage. > > Would this mean that if, say, the Boing 757 were to be enlarged to carry >more passengers that there would be less drag if instead of extending the >fuselage fore and aft with the existing cross section, the fuselage was >made double deck in front of the wings and extended single deck aft of the >wings so as to maintain weight and aerodynamic balance? [snip] No. The original 747 had an area-rule drag hit due to the cross-section increase then decrease then increase then decrease. It was not happy. The 757, on the other hand, does the increase then decrease and that's it. Adding an upper deck (what were you going to propose? Two abreast? :-)) would not be beneficial, even if were only over the forward part of the body. -- 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 Oct 28 03:06:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:36 Message-ID: USA Today ran a massive article on "superjumbos," today which was naturally factually devoid in a number of spots. It did, as is typical of USA Today, have some really cool drawings, though, which are worth seeing. Also, sorry about my post on the 747-500X, 600X pictures on Boeing's web site. By the time the post appeared on the newsgroup, I had seen that the picture had changed to a 777. I don't know if the picture is available elsewhere on the site, but if it is, by all means check it out. Airbus is picking up the pace on the A3XX publicity at its site, too. Douglas seems to be slow on the web thing, but all its airplanes are ugly anyway. My bet is that Airbus will release a new web site version promptly to compete with Boeing's. Airbus can't be content for Boeing to dominate anything, which is likely why there are more A320s around than Comets. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com P.S. Does anyone know if there is a picture of the KLM MD-11 "Maria Callas" available online or from other sources? From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Sten Lasu Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Telia Internet Services Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:55 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > >As I recall, about 10 years ago, an aircraft (DC10 or L1011, can't > >remember which) suffered catastrophic loss of engine oil pressure > >somewhere in the region of the Caribbean. Two out of the three engines > >were shut down. The remaining engine lasted long enough to reach a safe > >landing, though it too was suffering loss of oil pressure--a critical > >component had been wrongly installed in all three engines. > > It was an Eastern L-1011, flying from Miami to San Juan. I don't have > the date but I thought it was in the 1970s. (Details appreciated if > anyone can supply them.) Details on L-1011 incidents can be found on the "Unofficial L-1011 homepage" http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar/ This may be the incident you were looking for: __________________________________________________________________ May 5, 1983 - Loss Of Oil Pressure In All Three Engines 193A-1141 as N334EA Eastern Airlines flight 855 >From a college paper by Tim A. Krell "May 5, 1983. An Eastern Airlines L-1011 was en route from Miami to Nassau. The plane was at 23,000 feet and was starting its decent to Nassau. Suddenly an indicator light came on, announcing that the oil pressure in the Number 2 engine was dropping. The crew shut down the engine. Okay, no problem. The plane can still fly with only one engine out. However, in a few moments, the oil pressure started dropping on the Number 3 engine. The crew eased the power to the number 3 engine, but didn't shut it off completely. Okay. Still no problem. The plane can still run with an engine out, and one engine partially on. But then, the number 1 engine stopped rather abruptly. Okay, were still all right. In a few moments, the number 3 engine then quit. Okay, we still got the number 4 engine, right? Well, unfortunately, the L-1011 only has three engines. Now we do have a problem. The plane began to drop about 1,200 feet a minute, and needless to say, the people decided that this might perhaps be an opportune time to put on their life vests and read the safety information card. As the plane was about 3,900 feet above the Atlantic Ocean (they started at 23,000, remember) the Number 2 tail engine finally sputtered back to life and the plane was able to make a safe (and dry) emergency landing in Miami. Whew! "Why did the engines quit? It was due to an "oversight" by the maintenance men. Much to the chagrin of these conscientious, hard-working individuals, it was later discovered that they had forgotten to put oil seals on the oil plugs. Oops! I hate it when that happens! With the seal not in place, the oil can freely leak from the engine. "The mechanics said that they would have noticed the missing O-rings, as they are called, if they had been doing their work in the daytime. You see, they had to do their maintenance work late at night with flashlights and the lights of a pickup truck. Now do you think somebody's cutting costs where it comes to maintenance? No, of course not. "This was only the fourth incident of missing O-rings for Eastern. But in the finest tradition of "we never make the same mistake twice--er, I mean five times--in a row" Eastern finally got their act together. (But for how long?)" The oil plugs referred to in the piece were actually the Chip Detectors. The Chip Detectors are located in several points in the oil system and are routinely removed by mechanics to check for metal particles in the engine oil. Metal in the oil is a sure sign that the engine is starting to come apart. The metal can then be analyzed to determine where the metal came from and how much longer the engine can remain in service. The problem occurs when the O-rings that are supposed to seal the chip detector and keep it from leaking are damaged or not installed. In this case, none of the chip detectors removed that night had O-rings on them when they were reinstalled. Did you catch the part about the mechanics saying this wouldn't have happened if they wouldn't have been working at night with flashlights and pickup truck lights? Guess what? We still work that way. Human factors are always taken into consideration in an accident involving pilot error and changes are made to help prevent the same thing from happening. Human factors involving an accident caused by maintenance receive lip-service, but action to change the problem are rare. The pilot is responsible for the passengers, flight attendants and the airplane. The mechanic is responsible for the passengers, flight attendants, airplane and the pilot! Keep that in mind the next time you watch a mechanic working on your airplane outside, at night and in the rain. Additional Information: Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW&ST) July 23, 1984 Page 163-182 and Aug 13, 1984 page 185-219 NTSB Identification: MIA83AA136 For details, refer to NTSB microfiche number 23663A Scheduled 14 CFR 121 operation of EASTERN AIRLINES, INC. Incident occurred MAY-05-83 at MIAMI, FL Aircraft: LOCKHEED L-1011, registration: N334EA Injuries: 172 Uninjured. Descending thru 15000 ft into Nassau the #2 eng was shut down due to low oil press. At 16000 ft returning to Miami the #3 eng flamed out, & 3 min later the #1 eng flamed out. The acft began descending without power from 13000 ft. At about 10000 ft the flightcrew announced that ditching was imminent. The #2 eng was restarted at 4000 ft, & the acft made a one-eng landing at Miami. All o-ring seals in the master chip detector assy's in the eng lubrication system were missing causing oil leaks in all engs. Proper procedures to remove, reinstall & inspect the detectors for oil leaks were available. The foreman knew that mechanics were not routinely replacing o-ring seals. Accident was 9th chip detector occurrence since procedures were revised 12/81. FAA aware of problems on EAL acft but did not assign special surveillance priority to them. Attendants not aware of time available to prepare cabin for ditching. Pax had difficulty locating & donning life vests. Probable Cause Lubricating system,oil magnetic plug..Incorrect Procedures/directives..Not followed..Company maintenance personnel Maintenance,installation..Improper..Company maintenance personnel Supervision..Inadequate..Company maintenance personnel Unsafe/hazardous condition..Not corrected..Company/operator management Lubricating system,oil magnetic plug..Leak Fluid,oil..Starvation Accessory drive assy,extension unit..Overtemperature Accessory drive assy,extension unit..Failure,total Accessory drive assy,ext shaft bearing..Not engaged Fuel system,pump..Disabled Fluid,fuel..Starvation Contributing Factors Inadequate surveillance of operation..FAA(organization) Aircraft performance,two or more engines..Failure,total _____________________________________________________________________ Martin Lasu Stockholm,SWEDEN From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Stone Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dept Civil Engineering, Univ Bristol Reply-To: John.Stone@bristol.ac.uk Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:56 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > It was an Eastern L-1011, flying from Miami to San Juan. I don't have > the date but I thought it was in the 1970s. (Details appreciated if > anyone can supply them.) 5 May 1983, N334EA, Eastern Airlines flight 855, Miami - Nassau > The single point of failure in this incident was the mechanic -- one > individual improperly serviced all three engines. Magnetic probe chip detectors replaced. New ones came from stores labelled 'serviceable parts' and were (wrongly) assumed to have 'O'-ring seals fitted. Short (approx 10 sec) engine test did not show any leaks, but rapid leakage once in service. No oil = no fuel pumps = no engines. [Ref: Stewart, S. (1989). 'Emergency - crisis on the flight deck'. Airlife Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1 85310 348 9] -- John Stone John.Stone@bristol.ac.uk Dept Civil Engineering, University of Bristol Phone: 0117 928 8262 Bristol BS8 1TR, UK FAX: 0117 928 7783 From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:57 Message-ID: C. Marin Faure wrote: > The first jet engines were less reliable than the piston engines of the > same era. By "first jet engines" do you mean, for example, the J-57s of the 707? Or do you literally mean the very earlyjets that were never used for passenger service. If it is the former, I would like to hear more concrete evidence that they were "less reliable" than a Wright 3350. You may well be right, but it goes against EVERYthing I've read along those lines. > They have steadily gotten more reliable until today engine > failure can almost be ruled out as a potential problem, assuming proper > maintenance and operational procedures, of course. Again, "almost be ruled out" is a pretty strong term. I was shocked when I first flipped through the NTSB report page (http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/months.htm) to find a surprising number of "uncontained engine failures." Most of these weren't losing whole fan disks and killing people like the recent MD-88 or the Sioux City DC-10, but most represent total engine failures nonetheless. Statistically, yes its a small number of failures per number of flights... but in my book it can't "almost be ruled out" until the total probability of such a failure gets down to the "once in 10 years" sort of range. We aint there yet! -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:57 Message-ID: In barr@nilenet.com (Keith Barr) writes: > >In article , >Charles Platt wrote: >>I was told by a 747 captain that he could continue a takeoff on two >>engines. But even if this is untrue, if an ETOPS plane loses two engines >>on takeoff, it's in MUCH DEEPER trouble, wouldn't you say? >Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? It seems to >me that if you have two engines die, no matter how many you have, they >are all likely to go. In the late sixties or early seventies a Continental 707 lost both engines on one side during takeoff from LAX. They were able to come around and land safely. I don't remember if one engine fodded the other, or if they were independent failures. If you have a burning desire for more details, write to JGrandison@aol.com He does not read this ng. Of course, if you don't have enough power to clear obstacles with enough rudder to keep the plane straight, then you better pull what power you have and make a descent in which you can maintain directional control. RD From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:57 Message-ID: In article lou@alumnae.caltech.edu (Louis K. Scheffer) writes: > >I would suspect that a modern ETOPS plane, where the automated cockpit does >the 'right thing' upon an engine failure (where the right thing was thought >through by experts who were not under time pressure), is probably safer >than a 4 engine plane where an engine failure needs to be treated with >a long checklist and modified procedures. Interesting premise, except that on all airplanes, shutting off an engine is still in the province of the pilots, and will likely remain so for the indefinite future. The most significant areas of automation "involvement" (apart from navigation) are in fuel balancing and electrical load management. Plus *simplified* operation of some systems (single-lever engine starts in some airplanes, for instance, combined with start progress analysis and automatic action). -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:58 Message-ID: >>I was told by a 747 captain that he could continue a takeoff on two >>engines. But even if this is untrue, if an ETOPS plane loses two engines >>on takeoff, it's in MUCH DEEPER trouble, wouldn't you say? > >Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, >unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? It seems to me that if you >have two engines die, no matter how many you have, they are all likely to go. I have heard of at least one case where a heavyweight 747 cargo bird lost one engine on a wing due to an uncontained failure on takeoff which in turn took out the other engine on that wing...which in turn took the whole plane into the water due to uncontrollable roll. I am sure that lighter loads can probably be handled better on the 747. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:58 Message-ID: >I have heard of at least one case where a heavyweight 747 cargo bird >lost one engine on a wing due to an uncontained failure on takeoff which in >turn took out the other engine on that wing...which in turn took the whole >plane into the water due to uncontrollable roll. That sounds like China Air 538, a 747-2R7F (reg B-198) which went down shortly after takeoff from Taipei on December 29, 1991, killing all five crewmembers. A similar failure caused the October 4, 1992 crash of an El Al 747-258F (reg 4X-AXG) in Amsterdam, killing 54 people including everyone aboard the aircraft and numerous people in the apartment building the place crashed into. >I am sure that lighter loads can probably be handled better on the 747. Reports at the time suggested the El Al plane was not operating at a particularly high weight. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Adaptive Information Systems -- A Hitachi Company Reply-To: malc@deltanet.com Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:58 Message-ID: Louis K. Scheffer wrote: > I suspect the answer to this involves procedures and cockpit automation and > human factors much more than engine reliability. I know the limiting > factor on most redundant computer hardware is the human element once a failure > has occured. Suddenly, the person in charge has to do things differently, > using less well rehearsed procedures, and the odds of a mistake rise > dramatically. There are many classic cases of this; where one engine goes bad, > and the pilot then shuts off the good engine (thinking it's the bad one), or > where a landing gear warning light goes on, and the crew tries to fix this > while the plane flies into the ground, and so on. > > I would suspect that a modern ETOPS plane, where the automated cockpit does > the 'right thing' upon an engine failure (where the right thing was thought > through by experts who were not under time pressure), is probably safer > than a 4 engine plane where an engine failure needs to be treated with > a long checklist and modified procedures. I guess I'm confused. Let's compare the A330 and the A340, or the B777 with the B747-500X/-600X. Assuming similar technology engines (e.g. R-R Trents on the Boeings), is there an argument in favor of the reliability of the twin-jet over the quad-jet? I certainly agree that a B777 is almost unquestionably as good, if not better, than a 1969 vintage B747-100 in terms of reliability. But is that the question? I've heard many folks in the industry claim that there is no level of "acceptable risk", and, as a member of the travelling public, I think this is A Good Thing! But the whole ETOPS concept seems to stem from a "safe enough" philosophy, as opposed to a "safest possible" one. Now, I don't personally worry one way or the other how many engines the flight I'm on has, but I do question some of the ETOPS-logic, as it were, and DO believe that (at least with the PW-4084 B777) that ETOPS ratings were granted more for Grandstanding reasons than for operational or technical ones. (Didn't the GE and RR B777's get 180 minute ratings from the FAA, but only 120min levels from the JAA?). Malc. From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: michael keenan Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The University of Manitoba Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:58 Message-ID: On 28 Oct 1996, Keith Barr wrote: > In article , > Charles Platt wrote: > >I was told by a 747 captain that he could continue a takeoff on two > >engines. But even if this is untrue, if an ETOPS plane loses two engines > >on takeoff, it's in MUCH DEEPER trouble, wouldn't you say? > > Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, > unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? It seems to me that if you > have two engines die, no matter how many you have, they are all likely to go. The only scenario I can think of is with tri-jets. If you lose one of the wing engines on a DC-10/MD-11 or an L-1011, and it's an uncontained failure, I could imagine pieces of the engine getting sucked into the intake of the tail engine and taking that out. I did hear of a case of a DC-10 that had a piece of its engine nacelle on No. 1 or No. 3 come off and get sucked into No. 2. This was reported briefly in one of Fred McClement's admittedly alarmist books. If it happened with a piece of the nacelle it's plausible that it could happen with a piece of the actual engine in an uncontained failure. Mike From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:59 Message-ID: In article , barr@nilenet.com (Keith Barr) wrote > Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, > unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? It seems to me that if you > have two engines die, no matter how many you have, they are all likely to go. According to the records, there has never been a case of both engines in a commercial, twin-engine jetliner failing for separate reasons. Twins have run out of fuel and had both engines shut down due to severe rain or hail ingestion, but as of a year ago when I saw the records as part of researching an ETOPS video I was producing, there was not a single case of both engines in a twin failing for different causes, simultaneously or otherwise. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Growth in air traffic over the next 10 years? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:59 Message-ID: I have heard it said (from several sources, none of which I can remember) that a 10-fold increase in air traffic is expected by the year 2006. This is causing concern to operators and manufacturers of aircraft, since, assuming the same accident rate (currently around 2 per million departures for all types of accident involving death or serious injury, and around 1.5 per million departures for hull loss accidents, on scheduled passenger flights) this will lead to several serious air accidents being reported every week, so greatly increasing the publicly perceived risk of air travel. I have a copy of the "Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Aircraft Accidents, Worldwide Operations, 1959-1995" from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. The graph of annual departures does not bear out the suggested increase. Following a sharp growth from 1965 (2 million departures) to 1970 (7 million), the growth has been more or less steady and linear (1980 - 10 million, 1985 - 11 million, 1990 - 12.5 million, 1995 - 15.4 million). There does seem to be an upward trend in the rate of growth over 1990-1995, but nothing that could be extrapolated into a 10-fold increase. Would anyone like to confirm, refute, or otherwise comment on, these statistics? 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 Sun Nov 3 19:56:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:59 Message-ID: JWizardC wrote: > > The good news is that > is saves a lot of plumbing for fuel, hot air, and electricity. The bad > news is that if you forget to turn it off prior to takeoff, the passengers > get treated to a real pretty purple flame shooting out of the top of the > gear well as it starves for air. Well, I've never seen the pretty purple flame... but I have seen a "nervous flier" in the seat in front of me nearly have a stroke when the flight crew started the APU on a 727 and a lovely plume of thick white smoke poured out the exhaust port right outside the window :-) Apparently that particular APU was a bit of an oil burner. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: B727 APU (was:MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:59 Message-ID: In article , "Keith R. Thompson" writes: >The APU uses a flow multiplier which draws from the right wheel well. Only the -200 uses a flow multiplier. The flow multiplier allows the running of both a/c packs on the APU. The -100 can only run one pack on the APU. >The main problem with this installation is that in extremely hot >environments, high temperatures in the wheelwell when the APU is operating >can result in a Lower Aft Body overheat warning light illuminating on the >engineer's panel. Never heard of that. Generally, there would have to be some kind of bleed air duct rupture to result in a Lower Aft Body overheat warning. However, if the APU is not shut down prior to takeoff, when the gear is retracted a Wheel Well Fire warning light and bell could result. >That's why under these conditions ground crew will >frequently drop the main gear doors if the aircraft will be idle for >awhile. This aids airflow to the APU and reduces the likelihood of >getting the warning light. Never heard of, seen, or done that. The only time I am aware of the inboard gear doors being dropped is for maintenance. Seems like it might help with cooling, though. Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ----------------------------- Props are for boats! ----------------------------- From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:59 Message-ID: In article , David Lednicer writes: >> Can anyone describe to me what the 727 APU installation actually is? > > The APU is in the main gear bay, on the centerline, behind the >rear spar. The APU is actually situated in a hole in the fuselage keel >beam. Inlet air comes from the gear bay (I believe the gear must be >down to run the APU) and exhausts through a exit in the right hand upper >wing skin. Thanks for the various answers to my question. Just one more clarification....How high is the under surface of the wing? Are there any problems with FOD being sucked up into the APU? Gerald Wilson From kls Sun Nov 3 19:56:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Mark A. C. Wilson" Subject: Air Brakes??? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Date: 03 Nov 96 19:56:59 Message-ID: I would like some information about the probability of a cellular or any kind of transmitter being able to mess up the air brake system of a Fokker 100. I am a High School student taking flying lessons, and heard about the accident down in Brazil last Thursday, October 31st, where this Aircraft fell into a residential neighborhood after take off due to a passanger's cellular phone. The phone (somehow) opened the air brakes and reversed the troutle of the right engine, slaming the aircraft into a residential building couple minutes after takeoff. The pilot of the aircraft behind claims to have seen the right air brake open couple times during takeoff. If anyone could explain to me how this is possible, I would appreciate. I am also a Cadet of USAF - Civil Air Patrol (reason why I'm taking flying lessons). Thanks for your time; Mark A. C. Wilson wilsonm@usa.net From kls Sun Nov 3 19:57:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Adaptive Information Systems -- A Hitachi Company Reply-To: malc@deltanet.com Date: 03 Nov 96 19:57:00 Message-ID: McElravy wrote: > I don't expect to see any 777s carrying a spare anytime in the future. :-) > This does bring up an interesting point, though. In one of my books on the > 777 (the one by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner, I think, but it could be in > 21st Century Jet's limited photo section) there is a picture of a 777 > engine (I can't remember which brand: I can't find either book) being > loaded into a monster Antanov for transport. This makes me think that > transporting the monster engines for this airliner is rather difficult (big > around as a 737: doubters may look in the Guy Norris book; there is a > picture of a British Airways 737 (the River Eire, I believe) next to a GE90 > equipped 777. Wow.) Various engine vendors have trumpeted the transportation issues surrounding 777 engines. Unless I've got P&W mixed up with R-R, only the PW4084/4090 engine can be shipped "intact" inside a B747 freighter. The R-R needs some of its extremities removed (I *think*), while the GE90 needs to be shipped as a separate core and fan. A Reliable Source has suggested that the principal means of moving these things around is the C-130, or the An-124 according to availability... Malc. From kls Sun Nov 3 19:57:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Date: 03 Nov 96 19:57:00 Message-ID: McElravy asked: > > How is the extra engine mounted? How long does it take to mount/unmount? > How much extra does it cost to haul a spare around? Are airlines allowed to > do during normal commercial flights? If so, how often does it really > happen? Spare engine carriage (SEP) ability is an option that is ordered before the aircraft is built. A hard point is built into the wing, usually inboard of the left hand engine(s), onto which a mini-pylon which carries the engine can be attached. The engine is pre-prepared for carriage and then simply bolted to the mini-pylon and a stream-lined fairing placed around it. Our engineers could demount the new engine and mount the broken engine ( for return to the shop ) in one hour. There are quite severe performance penalties with SEP so it is only done when alternative freight methods are not available. SEP is conducted on normal revenue flights as it is a fully certified operation. With more and more wide-body freighters in operation and the increased reliability of jet engines it is now an unusual occurrence. Tony Maddern (ex-Cathay) From kls Sun Nov 3 19:57:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mdrews@nah.corp.es.com (Michael Drews) Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT Reply-To: mdrews@nah.corp.es.com (Michael Drews) Date: 03 Nov 96 19:57:00 Message-ID: In article , "McElravy" writes: > How much extra does it cost to haul a spare around? Are airlines allowed to > do during normal commercial flights? If so, how often does it really > happen? I rode on a United 747 carrying an extra engine around Decmber 20, 1981 on a flight from SFO to EWR with a stop at ORD. They had to take some extra time to inspect the flaps at Chicago, but other than the usual holiday and weather delays it was a normal flight. There was some kind of fairing just in front of the first stage fan, which covered about 1/2 the diameter of the turbofan. As others have mentioned, the engine was mounted on the left hand side of the plane between the inboard engine and the fuselage. Based on the time of year I would assume that the plane was carrying a full passenger load. Michael Drews -- "These aren't the droids you're looking for." From kls Sun Nov 3 19:57:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 03 Nov 96 19:57:01 Message-ID: In article , "McElravy" wrote: > In one of my books on the > 777 (the one by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner, I think, but it could be in > 21st Century Jet's limited photo section) there is a picture of a 777 > engine (I can't remember which brand: I can't find either book) being > loaded into a monster Antanov for transport. This makes me think that > transporting the monster engines for this airliner is rather difficult (big > around as a 737: doubters may look in the Guy Norris book; there is a > picture of a British Airways 737 (the River Eire, I believe) next to a GE90 > equipped 777. Wow.) Actually, the 777s engines are not quite as large in diameter as a 737 fuselage, although the GE comes close if you use the outside dimension of the fan case. All the 777s engines can be shipped in a C-130 transport, the most common way of airshipping engines. However, the GE does require the fan to be removed in this case. Since most of the few problems that might occur with an engine involve the core and not the fan, the larger size of the GE should not present significant problems since mostly what you're shipping is the core only. The shippment of engines in the Antanov was primarily during the intial production of the first airplanes which were used for flight test, and during the one-year flight test period. The flight test schedule required that engines be returned for analysis and replacement engines sent out to us quite rapidly, so the Antonov was used. I believe that normal shippment of production engines from Pratt & Whitney and GE is by rail, or truck, or both. I don't know how the Rolls engines are sent over, but as I said, they can fit in a relatively inexpensive air freighter like a C-130. Obviously, if there is a need in the future to move an assembled engine from the manufacturer to Puget Sound in a hurry, the Antonov will be used again. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Nov 3 19:57:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Tucker Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: achilles.net Reply-To: ktucker@achilles.net Date: 03 Nov 96 19:57:01 Message-ID: Early series 747s often carried spare engines to out of country stations. I have a great slide (dated 1978)of a British Airways P&W powerd 747 on finals into 10L at LHR with the "fifth" in place. -- Keith Tucker; ktucker@achilles.net who would rather be boating ! From kls Sun Nov 3 19:57:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Kees de Lezenne Coulande <100121.1153@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Any good biography of Geoffrey de Havilland Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 03 Nov 96 19:57:02 Message-ID: Gerry McMahon wrote: >Anyone know of a good biography of Geoffrey de Havilland ? > >I'm also interested in any good history of the DH company. Info on >biography or any publications of DH test pilot John Cunningham also >appreciated. Sir Geoffrey's autobiography is called "Sky Fever". The copy I have was published in 1979 by Airlife in the U.K. (ISBN 0-906393-02-7), but I suspect that this may be a reprint of an earlier edition. The history of the De Havilland company is covered in "DH A History of de Havilland", by C.Martin Sharp. My copy was published in 1982 by Airlife (ISBN 0-906393-20-5), but this is a second and extended edition of a work first published in 1960 by Faber and Faber. A good book is also "De Havilland Aircraft since 1909", by A.J.Jackson, published in 1978 (second edition) by Putnam, London (ISBN 0-370-30022-X). This covers all aircraft types developed by de Havilland, with a short introduction (20 pages or so) on the company history. I cannot find anything on John Cunningham. But I do have a book on one of the other DH test pilots: "John Derry. The story of Britain's first supersonic pilot", by Annie Bullen and Brian Rivas, published in 1982 by William Kimber, London (ISBN 0-7183-0099-8). Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander E-mail: 100121.1153@compuserve.com Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands From kls Sun Nov 3 19:57:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Peter Dowden Subject: Ansett NZ 1995 DH8 crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ Date: 03 Nov 96 19:57:02 Message-ID: The Court case is underway for the NZ Police to obtain a search warrant to seize the CVR from the Transport Accident Investigation Commission [TAIC]. This is opposed by almost everyone: the Pilots' union, Ansett NZ, TAIC. The Police say they need the CVR to conduct their manslaughter [British expression, =culpable homicide] enquiry, but NZ law can prevent the use of search warrants in "fishing expeditions" ie looking for evidence without suspicion that a crime has occurred. CVRs are not compulsory in New Zealand. The Airlines and pilots are threatening to stop using them. International custom has prevented their use in cvourt up to now, to encourage thorough investigations of crashes for the overall benefit of safety. I'll keep you all posted as the case proogresses. Peter From kls Sun Nov 3 19:57:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 03 Nov 96 19:57:03 Message-ID: In article , Pete Mellor wrote: > When I visited Boeing in Seattle in 1995 ... the historic aircraft > team were refurbishing a WW2 B17 from the rivets up. ... > The bit that is relevant to this discussion, however, is that the > fuel tanks were flexible bags. This practice is not limited to WWII airplanes. The Cessna 206 I used to fly in Hawaii had rubber fuel bladders in the wings. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Nov 3 19:57:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bob Falkiner Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: RJF Home Reply-To: falkiner@interlog.com Date: 03 Nov 96 19:57:03 Message-ID: bob mackey wrote: > > On 03 Sep 96 01:16:54 , Bob Falkiner wrote: > > >Mikeit takes only a small percentage of an inert gas to render an > >explosive atmosphere "safe" regardless of what the gas is. > The explosive limits of a fuel-air mixture vary widely depending on > the fuel, the pressure, and the temperature. As Bob F. suggests, the > key is whether there is enough heat output from combustion, to sustain > a temperature rise that can continue the combustion. But it is not > generally true that a few percent of exhaust gas will suspress > combustion ... > Two extreme fuel examples are hydrogen and acetylene. With either of > these gases, adding 90% exhaust to a fuel-air mixture will leave the > mixture explosive. hydrogen and acetylene are *extreme* examples..... hydrogen and acetylene are "anomalies" in that the explosive ranges are so wide, and your example assumes that the water of combustion of the diluent gas is fully condensed which is not the case under typical use quoted. Flue gas is mostly water so your basis is important! if you take a more normal example of say butane, given a stoicheometric mixture which is worst case, it takes by my info available less than 20% of any "inert" gas to render the mixture non combustable. From news Tue Oct 22 22:09:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!rdd From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: The University of Iowa Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:48:53 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu I would like to thank everyone who answered my question about the use of inert (non oxygen containing) gasses in the ullage spaces in aircraft fuel tanks to prevent fuel-air explosions. This question is naturally related to the loss of TWA flight 800, where investigators have been reported to have found evidence consistent with such an explosion in the center fuel tank. To summarize the information I received, many aircraft have successfully used inert gas systems. In particular, the C-5 and C-17 transports flown by the United States Air Force use nitrogen gas for this purpose. The newer of these two aircraft, the C-17, has a device that separates ambient air into its two main constituents, oxygen and nitrogen, and sends the nitrogen produced to the fuel tanks. As I understand it, this is the same basic process that has been used on other aircraft to produce breathing oxygen for the crew. Military air transport does not, of course, have exactly the same economic constraints as an airline, but still the C-17 is similar to a large airliner in several respects, including size, type of engines and number of flight crew (excluding cabin attendants), and the C-17 is said to have been designed to strict specifications of total lifetime cost, including maintenance. McDonnell Douglas in fact is currently offering the C-17 for sale to commercial operators, although the civilian version will lack the on board inert gas generating system as well as in-flight refueling equipment and some other systems. Is there any reason that it would be impractical to put a nitrogen fuel tank pressurization system similar to that on the C-17 on an airliner? Could it be retrofitted, or would it have to be incorporated in new models only? Aside from the weight and space, I can't see any drawbacks, in that the failure of such a system would not in itself endanger the aircraft. Ambient air would still be available for venting, so it would be no more dangerous than present practice, as long as maintenance on the electrical system was kept to the current standard. Thank you in anticipation, Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From news Tue Oct 29 00:01:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!iag.net!enews.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!rdd From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:56:44 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu In article , pwezeman@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu says... > Is there any reason that it would be impractical to put a nitrogen >fuel tank pressurization system similar to that on the C-17 on an >airliner? Could it be retrofitted, or would it have to be >incorporated in new models only? Aside from the weight and space, I >can't see any drawbacks, in that the failure of such a system would >not in itself endanger the aircraft. Ambient air would still be >available for venting, so it would be no more dangerous than present >practice, as long as maintenance on the electrical system was kept to >the current standard. Weight and Space are not the only consideration. While I recognize that under much older certification standards there have been accidents related to this, but have there been any attributed to this for aircraft certificated under more recent FAR requirements (We can't use TWA 800 as an answer since a cause has not yet been deterined. Under todays laws, concerning rulemaking (the process of changing the FARs) the FAA must show that the increase in the level of safety provided by requiring such a change justifies its cost. While many people disagree with this premiss you can't blame the FAA for it when these types of requirements are set by congress. The FAA can't just ignore the regulations any more that any operator can. As for the other considerations: 1. Can it be justified (see above) or are the current standards enough. 2. Added maintence costs (this would appear to be a BIG cost) 3. retrofiiting many older aircraft may be impossible (or maybe the word is impratical) due to the design of there fuel systems. There are probably others also. Moderator's note: The little (compared to airliners) SR-71 uses LN2 to pressurize the fuel tanks. The plane has three LN2 bottles for this purpose. These bottles, which have to contain a lot of pressure, are not light. In addition, there's quite a bit of plumbing required. Maintainence is not straightforward. Furthermore, servicing is a real pain. Such a system would be very impractical, both to retrofit and to turn around at the destination. Obviously, this old airplane doesn't use the system to collect N2 from the ambient air as does the C-17, however, I have seen that C-17 system and it's quite large and looks very heavy. It too has a lot of plumbing. When you consider that airlines switched from glass to plastic for the little liquor bottles purely for the saving of fuel, you can understand that every ounce of added weight is very expensive. Unlike the laity, who frequently say that "you can't put a price on a human life", you can do exactly that. When I was in college in the late '60s, the price the California Department of Transport (now Caltrans) put on one life was $100,000 per year. That is, if an improvement was projected to save one life per year, the Department would only proceed with the improvement if the cost was less than $100,000 per year. For improvements that didn't require continuing maintainence, I believe the criterion was one life in five years. Since airliners aren't falling out of the sky with great regularity because the ullage isn't filled with inert gas, I'd say that it's not likely to happen. Maybe someone would like to ask the FAA, NTSB, and major airlines what their criterion (price per life) is? Also ask the airlines how much money they're saving on those plastic bottles, of course. MFS] From news Tue Oct 29 00:02:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!gannett.math.niu.edu!corn.cso.niu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!rdd From: mdw@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz (Woodhams) Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: University of Auckland Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:56:25 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu "P. Wezeman" writes: >this purpose. The newer of these two aircraft, the C-17, has a device >that separates ambient air into its two main constituents, oxygen and >nitrogen, and sends the nitrogen produced to the fuel tanks. As I Can anyone tell me how this device works? I would guess some chemical absorbs oxygen from the air flow (leaving nitrogen for the tanks) and is periodically heated to expel the oxygen. [Moderator's note: Regarding the C-17, one of the test team members told me that they used a compressor and, since it acts like a centrifuge, they tapped off the compressed gases, being of different densities, at different radiuses, or so he thought. I seem to recall that the unit is cylindrical, but I may have been looking at a tank and not a compressor. It sounded good to me, but that doesn't mean it's true. MFS] From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Peter Dowden Subject: Re: Ansett NZ 1995 DH8 crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:54 Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, michael keenan wrote: > > > > I don't know anything about this crash. Do you have any information on the > circumstances? No! :-) I don't have much memory of the exact details, like the date of the crash. The DH8 hit the Tararua Ranges on approach to Palmerston North Airport. Initial eyewitness accounts suggest the pilots attempted to crash-land the craft, ie it didn't simply bang into the mountain. I think the pilots died, most or all of the pax survived. My post was about the court case, not the crash: I'm sorry I can't help out much with the crash. By the way, the court case is stuck over something at the moment, there's no progress. Peter From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:56 Message-ID: In article faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: >ingestion, but as of a year ago when I saw the records as part of >researching an ETOPS video I was producing, there was not a single case of >both engines in a twin failing for different causes, simultaneously or >otherwise. Does that include the pilot pulling the plug on the wrong engine as part of an engine-out procedure? :-) -- 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 Nov 5 04:13:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:57 Message-ID: michael keenan wrote: > > On 28 Oct 1996, Keith Barr wrote: > > > Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, > > unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? It seems to me that if you > > have two engines die, no matter how many you have, they are all likely to go. > > The only scenario I can think of is with tri-jets. If you lose one of the > wing engines on a DC-10/MD-11 or an L-1011, and it's an uncontained > failure, I could imagine pieces of the engine getting sucked into the > intake of the tail engine and taking that out. ' I think there have been a number of instances where an uncontained failure of #2 or #3 on a 4-engine plane has taken out #1 or #4 as well. In fact, I find this much more likely than a wing engine on a tri-jet taking out the tail engine, since the trailing/outboard engines on a 4-engine swept- wing plane are well within range of flying fragments from the leading/inboard engines. On a tri, the intake for #2 is both further away and partially protected by the fuselage and wing structure. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lou@alumnae.caltech.edu (Louis K. Scheffer) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:57 Message-ID: Malcolm Weir writes: >Louis K. Scheffer wrote: [...] >> >> I would suspect that a modern ETOPS plane, where the automated cockpit does >> the 'right thing' upon an engine failure (where the right thing was thought >> through by experts who were not under time pressure), is probably safer >> than a 4 engine plane where an engine failure needs to be treated with >> a long checklist and modified procedures. Malcom replied: >[...] I certainly agree that a B777 is almost unquestionably as >good, if not better, than a 1969 vintage B747-100 in terms of >reliability. But is that the question? >I've heard many folks in the industry claim that there is no level of >"acceptable risk", and, as a member of the travelling public, I think >this is A Good Thing! But the whole ETOPS concept seems to stem from a >"safe enough" philosophy, as opposed to a "safest possible" one. This is absolutely true, and the basis of any sort of risk management. A good book on this subject is 'Technological Risk", by H. W. Lewis. The problem with 'safest possible' is that it takes no account of cost. As an example, a safest possible strategy is "don't fly in bad weather". But this makes aviation unpredictable and sometimes unavailable, which will force people to drive more, which results in more overall deaths and accidents. Another classic example of 'safest possible' failing was the 'Delaney Clause' of the food and Drug administration. This said that no substance could be added to food if there was any evidence of causing cancer in any animal at any dosage. This sounds reasonable at first, but resulted in the artificial sweetener saccharin being banned, since it is carcinogenic to rats in high concentrations. The worst case estimates were that it might increase your cancer risk by at most 10 parts per million over your lifetime (assuming the rat data is applicable to humans, and that the observered effects are linear over a range of 3000 or more in dosage per kg. of body weight). On the other hand, something like a third of all people in the US die of obesity related conditions. So the attempt to make soemthing as safe as possible on one front (cancer) results in making a minor improvement on that front while making a related (and more serious) problem worse. So almost every safety field has to decide what 'safe enough' means, when it is time to stop improving that aspect and use your finite resources to solve some other problem. In the aviation world, safe enough is usually one failure in 10^9 hours (this was set so that there would be no expected failures in a popular type of airplane over the life a fleet of them). In the cancer world, it's one additional cancer in 1,000,000 people (on top of the 200,000 of them you would expect to die of cancer anyway.). Setting a limit and using it to order your priorities is crucial to reducing the overall risk of a complex system. So in fact the concept of 'safe enough' is preferable in practice to the concept of 'as safe as possible', as odd as that may seem at first. -Lou Scheffer From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:57 Message-ID: In article , Steve Lacker wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > > The first jet engines were less reliable than the piston engines of the > > same era. > > By "first jet engines" do you mean, for example, the J-57s of the 707? Yes. The very FIRST jet engines often shed parts during takeoff, several incidents of which were related to me by Tex Johnston, the Boeing test pilot on the B-47, B-52, and 707 programs. But the jets used on the early 707s and DC-8s had their problems, too. The Wright R-3350 and the Pratt & Whitney engines (not the Wasp Major, however) were pretty reliable considering what they were. Their TBOs were low and they required a lot of maintenance, but they weren't bad for piston engines. The ealier jet engines, however, did not perform up to expectations for a number of years. I've talked to B-52 crewmembers, for example, who told me that they considered it remarkable if all eight engines were still running after takeoff. > > They have steadily gotten more reliable until today engine > > failure can almost be ruled out as a potential problem, assuming proper > > maintenance and operational procedures, of course. > > Again, "almost be ruled out" is a pretty strong term. I was shocked when > I first flipped through the NTSB report page > (http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/months.htm) to find a surprising number of > "uncontained engine failures." Most of these weren't losing whole fan > disks and killing people like the recent MD-88 or the Sioux City DC-10, > but most represent total engine failures nonetheless. Statistically, yes > its a small number of failures per number of flights... but in my book it > can't "almost be ruled out" until the total probability of such a failure > gets down to the "once in 10 years" sort of range. We aint there yet! Again, it depends on what engines you're talking about. The newest high-bypass engines used on planes like the 757, 767, A-310, A-330, and 777 are incredibly reliable. More so that the engines used on 727s, DC-9s, and so on. As I said in an earlier post, as of the last time I looked at the statistics there has never been a case of both engines on a commercial twin-engine jetliner failing for different causes. As far as ETOPS operations are concerned, the airlines no longer consider engine failure the most likely potential cause of a problem. If there is a problem on an ETOPS plane, it is much more likely to be a systems problem. And since ETOPS planes use the same systems used on 3 and 4 engine planes, the potential of a problem on an ETOPS twin is no different than the potential of a problem on a 3 or 4 engine airplane. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: B727 APU (was:MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:57 Message-ID: >However,if the APU is not shut down prior to takeoff, when the gear is >retracted a Wheel Well Fire warning light and bell could result. The 727 APU is not certified for airborne use and it should automatically shutdown once the air/ground sw goes to air mode. Normal ops is to shut it down once the engines have been started. From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:58 Message-ID: GWilson404@aol.com wrote: > > In article , David Lednicer > writes: > > >> Can anyone describe to me what the 727 APU installation actually is? > > > > The APU is in the main gear bay, on the centerline, behind the > >rear spar. The APU is actually situated in a hole in the fuselage keel > >beam. Inlet air comes from the gear bay (I believe the gear must be > >down to run the APU) and exhausts through a exit in the right hand upper > >wing skin. > > Thanks for the various answers to my question. Just one more > clarification....How high is the under surface of the wing? Are there any > problems with FOD being sucked up into the APU? > > Gerald Wilson Ok, here's the deal on the 727 APU. It is mounted in a hole in the keel beam in the forward end of the wheel well and hangs from the ceiling of the wheel well. The portion of the APU with the gearbox, electrical generator, starter, fuel control, oil pump and oil filter is in the left wheel well. The portion of the APU which contains the combustion chamber, ignitor plug and box, turbine wheel and the APU load valve (the valve which turns pneumatics to the airplane on and off) is in the right wheel well. The APU exhaust exits through the top of the right wing, just a little aft of the rear overwing exit. The air inlets for the APU are in the left wheel well and are protected from FOD by the left gear door which is normally closed. One of the air inlets is for cooling the electrical generator. The other feeds air to the APU compressor section. The bottom of the wing is about 6 feet off the ground. This is kind of hard to visualize. Is there a way to post pictures to this group? Maybe I'll just throw some pictures together and put them on a web page. From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Carl Peters Subject: Looking for a book Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet 1st, Inc Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:58 Message-ID: Does anyone know of a book printed in the mid '80's about the piston era London-Sydney route, in which the author contrasts the old route proving days to a modern flight duplicating all the legs traveled? Any help appreciated regarding possible title/author. Carl Peters (cpeters@i1.net) From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: Why not a full length upper deck on a 747-600X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:58 Message-ID: On 28 Oct 1996, Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: > >> When Boeing originally > >> streched the 747-200 to the longer upper deck on the -300, the drag of the > >> airplane actually went down, even though there was more fuselage. > > The original 747 had an area-rule drag hit due to the cross-section > increase then decrease then increase then decrease. It was not happy. According to an _AW&ST_ report a few years back, the reduced drag resulting from this upper deck stretch came as a complete surprise to the wind tunnel researchers who discovered it (as did the reduction in drag from the flattened tailcone "stinger" on the the later MD-80 series aircraft). Can anyone from Boeing confirm this? Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:58 Message-ID: In "McElravy" writes: >Douglas seems to be slow on the web thing, but all its airplanes are >ugly>anyway. My bet is that Airbus will release a new web site version >promptly to compete with Boeing's. Airbus can't be content for Boeing >to dominate anything, which is likely why there are more A320s around >than Comets. The MD-11 is a fine looking bird, IMO. I always preferred the DC-10 over most others, but beside an MD-11 it looks too short. There is none uglier than the 747 humpback whale, and the A320 looks like a shortened version of a good design. The A319 must look really awkward. There may be more A320's built than Comets, but the A320 may still have a worse accident record, which at one time was the worst since the beginning of the jet age. RD From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:58 Message-ID: >There may be more A320's built than Comets, but the A320 may still have >a worse accident record, which at one time was the worst since the >beginning of the jet age. I suspect hull losses per flight or flight hour would be one metric by which the A320 might have held the worst accident record. However, I would view that by itself as merely being evidence that you can prove anything you like with statistics. I say this because the first A320 loss (Habsheim, on June 26, 1988) came barely two months after the first revenue service (Air France, Paris to Dusseldorf, on April 18, 1988). I can't think of any other jetliner that has suffered a loss so soon after entry into service. However, that sort of analysis might lead one to conclude that the L-1011 is a deathtrap compared to the DC-10, a conclusion which is not supported by a more comprehensive analysis. Here are the "firsts" for these two planes: L-1011 service: Apr 26, 1972 (Eastern, New York to Miami) fatality: Dec 12, 1972 (Eastern 401, near Miami, 101 killed) hull loss: (same) DC-10 service: Aug 5, 1971 (American, Los Angeles to Chicago) fatality: Nov 3, 1973 (unknown, near Albuquerque, 1 killed) hull loss: Dec 17, 1973 (Iberia, Boston, hit approach lights) fatal crash: Mar 3, 1974 (THY, near Paris, 346 killed) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:58 Message-ID: Mark Ingram (markt@mickey.mo-net.com) wrote: : Besides the PCU's dual-concentric servo valves, which are susceptible to : galling, there are definitely any number of 737 -100's and -200's flying : with old-technology flight data recorders (five-channel foil models, : perhaps?). While these are indeed "certified" for their use on certain : aircraft, they nonetheless are not "certifiable under current criteria" : for installation under new Type certificates. In a BBC World Service broadcast this week on their transportation feature called "On the Move" a person commenting on the difficulty of finding the cause of the TWA 800 B747 explosion asserted that American Flight Data Recorders were much less informative than current European ones, and that had a better FDR been aboard the aircraft the cause might now be known. -- Gerry From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Harvie Subject: 757-300 & future 737's to share new cabin design Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:59 Message-ID: Newswire reports last week said that the 757-300 and future versions of the 737 will share updated "777-style" cabin features such as longer overhead bins, indirect lighting, and ceiling panels easier to maintain and clean. The new overhead bins can be ordered with an optional handrail built-in to aid passengers and crew moving about the cabin. Other changes announced for the 757-300 include vacuum toilets and flexible seating options. The flexible seating arrangements will allow quick changes to placement of cabin dividers, seat pitch and number of seats abreast depending on number of passengers booked per class of service. Many of the features of the new 757-300 cabin will be carried over to future variants of the 737 because customers told Boeing it "needed a more open, contemporary look." Customers will also benefit from parts and maintenance commonality between these aircraft types (which in my opinion will help better compete with Airbus on this selling point). John Harvie, Firefly Network, Inc., visit: http://www.firefly.com 17 Sellers Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, 617.234.5479, Fax 234.5414 Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. :) From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Detecting consumer electronics possible ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:59 Message-ID: There has been much talk lately about the impact of adult toys (laptops, GPS, walkmans etc) on on-board navigation equipment. Obviously, airlines introducing fancy on board entertainment and electronics have a way to ensure that these do not interfere with the navigation equipment. Is it fair to assume that equipment is available to detect/measure the emi emissions from a "thing" ? Would it be theoretically possible to have such equipment on the plane that would detect the use of passenger electronics which interfere with the navigation equipment ? (Eg: pilot are told that there are emissions which interfere with navigation equipment thus rendering it unreliable). Seems to me that stopping the electronic toy tidal wave is pretty impossible. I am just wondering if airliners could be retrofitted to detect if an unfriendly toy is being used. From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joe Curry Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:59 Message-ID: In message M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) writes: > Do I think we will be still flying in subsonic aircraft > similar to what we have now in 20 years time? Look about you and and see the number of 'old' Tristars and DC10's. 747's etc. etc. New technology costs money and money is what it is all about. You are quite right of course but I am afraid instead of similar, it should read 'the same'. -- Joe Curry _|_ --o--O--o-- Edinburgh Airport is the UK's fastest growing. Insist on EDI flights. Visit the text page on http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/jcurry From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:59 Message-ID: Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: > > > As for where it will lead us, who knows? Your assertion that the basic > design of airlines has not changed since the 707 is not accurate. > Suffice to say that airliner design has change significantly since the days > fo the venerable 707. Most of changes are in ways that the average > passenger doesn't see. Metalurgy, glass cockpits, improved engines, better > fatigue life, more reliable systems, lower drag airfoils, more powerful > flap systems, the list is just endless, really. > Without defining a reference against which "change" is judged, you can argue this point either way. Modern airliners are still jet-powered (fan instead of pure jet, to be sure, but the pure-jet 707 was phased out realtively early on). Most are still fly-by-cable. Most are still single-deck, although some are multi-aisle. Passengers would comment that a 707 is a little louder than a 757, but MOST wouldn't even notice any other significant differences. However, put a modern 757 passenger on a Constellation or an Electra, and I think they would notice rather quickly :-) You are right, you can point out MANY changes from the 707 to the 757- and I mean truly remarkable, non-trivial engineering changes. But the grand sum of all those changes is far less than the difference between a Constellation and a 707, if you are talking about speed, dispatch reliability, maintenance hours, TBO, etc. I think the point is, will there be a similar revolution in the next 50 years? I would guess "yes", but who knows for sure. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Tue Nov 5 04:13:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Carley Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Date: 05 Nov 96 04:13:59 Message-ID: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes: >A decade ago, I worked on a project with the {ground} fuel systems >guru for UAL. (I'll not name him, but he was noted for bow ties...) >He insisted that we'd have one more complete generation of >oil-burners, then we'd start to see hydrogen powered aircraft. That >would solve the NOx problem, at least..... And indeed, last week Aviation Leak reported that Dornier were ready to test a hydrogen powered 328. -- "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 Tue Nov 5 04:14:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:00 Message-ID: > It depends on where you draw the line between evolution and revolution. > Comparing the turbo jets of the 707 to the 100 inch fans of the 777 is a > bit of a stretch. I would probably call it evolutionary, but it's long > path from one to the other. Engines may have changed massively, but the point was about what the BASIC appearance of airliners is compared with then. The 707 and 777 are really very similar: they are long, round, have a low, moderately swept wing with engines mounted on the bottom of it, the cockpit in the front, holes drilled in the side for passengers to look out of, a cruising speed of roughly 0.80 mach etc., etc. If you compare the aeronautical progress made in the roughly 30 years from Kitty Hawk to the DC-3 to the progress made in the roughly 30 years from the Dash 80 to the 777, you're talking about quite a difference. It must be said, however, that over the years there HAVE been small revolutions that WERE radically different looking that seem normal now: the T-tail, winglets (which seem to be going the way of the dodo), the #2 engine mounting in the DC-10, widebodies, double decker cabins, engines on the body instead of the wings, slats, spoilers, thrust reversers, etc., etc. To sum all my ramblings up, the rate of aviation progress has slowed down, but may pick up if some amazing new technology pops up. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: imacduff@aol.com (IMacduff) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: imacduff@aol.com (IMacduff) Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:00 Message-ID: Thanks for all the responses, Seems like I got quite a few grudging admissions that maybe airliner technology is relatively mature and in a period of flattening evolution. I like to look at the most ubsurd extremes when looking for the end to technological trends, and in the case of air travel, that would be an aircraft which after reaching the end of the departure runway, instantly appeared at the approach end of the destination runway. Wow! But even then, you'd have spent five or six hours packing; getting to the airport; getting a boarding pass; waiting to get on; waiting to taxi; getting to the runway etc. At the departure end you do much of the same in reverse. Five or six hours for an instananeous trip. I suspect most airline trips these days consume more of the passengers time on the ground than in the air. Who hasn't spent hours getting to and then on and off a 45 minute flight? Not so in the early days of aviation when you might have spent eight hours or so preparing and getting on a flight that might have taken several days to cross the country. It's clear that as aircraft get faster, we just spend a smaller percentage of our time in the air, and a larger percentage getting to and from the runway. The importance of greater speed in the air diminishes. For most people, the extra speed of the Concorde is not worth the higher ticket price and lower comfort, as subtracting three hours from what is usually a 10 hour or more ordeal just isn't that critical to most people - traveling on the Concorde is more likely to be perk that a necessity of time. To end it all, orbital speed is the ultimate limit for point to point travel on earth. Any faster would require using precious fuel to prevent yourself from climbing into a higher orbit and away from your destination. Ask Alan Shepherd - it's the only way to circle the globe - if you don't mind pulling the G's. The question is, can you ever make suborbital flight as economical, safe and operationally reliable as todays good ole 727? imacduff@aol.com From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: khowie@accessone.com (Keith Howie) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AccessOne Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:00 Message-ID: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: >A decade ago, I worked on a project with the {ground} fuel systems >guru for UAL. (I'll not name him, but he was noted for bow ties...) >He insisted that we'd have one more complete generation of >oil-burners, then we'd start to see hydrogen powered aircraft. That >would solve the NOx problem, at least..... I'm by no means an expert on this subject, but I recall reading several years ago that NOx would be one of the major problems associated with hydrogen-burning aircraft engines. The reasoning was that the very high temperatures such engines would operate at would cause atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen to combine chemically. Has this perhaps turned out not to be a problem or has technology bailed us out again? Keith From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@mallard.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:00 Message-ID: In article wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes: dl> A decade ago, I worked on a project with the {ground} fuel systems dl> guru for UAL. (I'll not name him, but he was noted for bow dl> ties...) dl> He insisted that we'd have one more complete generation of dl> oil-burners, then we'd start to see hydrogen powered dl> aircraft. That would solve the NOx problem, at least..... Actually, it would solve the unburnt Hydrocarbons (HC) problem - since the primary chemical reaction would be 2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O. (It would also eliminate the greenhouse CO2 gas and CO production, as well). However, while there would be a reduction in NOx production (because you could now run "rich" without making HC emissions), there would always be some NOx because of the high temperature in the engine combined with the high nitrogen content of the atmosphere. As a thread mentioned a while back (a year ago?), hydrogen has some technical problems to overcome yet before becoming a viable fuel for gas turbine engines - flammability, onboard storage, ground distribution infrastructure, etc. 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 Nov 5 04:14:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: eaustin@islandnet.com (Edward Austin MSc) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Island Net in Victoria, B.C. Canada Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:01 Message-ID: On 5 Oct 1996 03:33:07 GMT, rickydik@ix.netcom.com(RD Rick) wrote: >In <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc >Bauwens) writes: >>Again, misleading/sloppy/dishonest job by the press? >> >>No matter how hard a bunch of prejudiced Germans tried to >>ascribe the responsibility to the Turkish crew, I thought >>it had been generally recognized that the key factor in the >>accident was the conflicting reactions of two computers or >>software to a plugged pitot tube? >> >>One of them producing an (incorrect) overspeed warning while the >>other, a stall warning. Faced with 50/50 odds, the pilots picked >>the wrong bet... > Not too different from another crash initially blamed on the Turkish crew by the American press, that of the THY DC-10 back in March '74. This crash initially ascribed to pilot error turned out to be faulty design of the cargo door latching mechanism. Mc D-D (and the American press) implying the crew being "Turkish" was somehow to blame. From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jonathan Griffitts Subject: Peruvian 757 crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AnyWare Engineering Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:01 Message-ID: I've been lurking, waiting to see any more information on the Peruvian 757 crash a couple of weeks ago. All I've seen so far is very sketchy and self-contradictory information from the newspaper. >From what I can tell, it would appear that the 757 suffered some kind of major failure in the electronics. The pilot was quoted as saying that "the computers are going crazy" and that he did not know where he was. He pleaded for a guide plane to help him navigate back to the airport. Then somehow the plane went into the water. This sounds like it COULD be the ultimate glass-cockpit horror story: they suffered an electrical or electronic failure that was so complete that it left the plane uncontrollable. Is this is the event that the glass-cockpit opponents have been predicting? However I would be quicker to believe that the computers did something unexpected, and the pilots were so distracted that they forgot about flying the airplane. Or perhaps they got disoriented under night/low- visibility conditions and lost control that way. Is there any more information out there yet? -- Jonathan Griffitts AnyWare Engineering Boulder, CO, USA voice/fax: 303 442-0556 email jcg@qadas.com From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:01 Message-ID: >I've been lurking, waiting to see any more information on the Peruvian >757 crash a couple of weeks ago. All I've seen so far is very sketchy >and self-contradictory information from the newspaper. There was a spurt of some of the worst "information" I've seen about a crash, followed by nothing. What appears to be factual is that AeroPeru flight 603 left Lima's Jorge Chavez International Airport at 12:42 am on October 2nd, for a 3.5 hour flight to Santiago, Chile, and about 28 minutes later it crashed into the Pacific Ocean roughly 45 nm WNW of the airport. No survivors have been found from amongst the 61 passengers and 9 crew. The aircraft, N52AW (sn 25489, ln 505) was one of two Boeing 757-23A aircraft in AeroPeru's fleet, both equipped with PW2037 engines and leased from Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services. It was delivered to AWAS on December 2, 1992 and immediately stored at Marana, Arizona. It finally entered service a year later on lease to Aeromextour, and was then leased to AeroPeru via Aeromonterrey. Flight 603 originated in Miami. The scheduled equipment, AeroPeru's other 757, suffered a mechanical problem, so a 727 was substitured for the MIA-LIM segment. The crew was changed along with the aircraft at Lima. Recovery efforts have been hampered by both depth (about 500 ft) of the water as well as strong currents and cold temperatures. (TWA 800 crashed into comparatively calm waters only 100-150 ft deep.) Seemingly within minutes of the crash, various Peruvian officials were spewing all sorts of rubbish about what happened. As you say, much of the information has been self-contradictory. However, it seems safe to say that there was some sort of instrument and/or control failure. One of the pilots reportedly radioed saying, "I don't have any instruments" and requested a guide plane to lead them back to the airport. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Human factors relation to cabin crew Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:01 Message-ID: In Gary Cowens writes: >Can anybody please point us in the direction to where we can find out >any information regarding the following: > >Application of Human factors therory to cabin crew in the air transport >environment. Western Pacific Airlines in Colorado Springs has done joint cabin/flight deck training. Not sure about human factors. Try their website. www.westpac.com? Not sure you can reach them thru Sita. RD From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Human factors relation to cabin crew Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:01 Message-ID: In Gary Cowens writes: >Can anybody please point us in the direction to where we can find out >any information regarding the following: > >Application of Human factors therory to cabin crew in the air transport >environment. Would be interested in dialog related to cabin crew human factors...suspect that there is a body of information which we could help you access, but do not have bibliography in front of me at this moment. Our office has general cabin safety interest though is not responsible for regulatory or R&D activity of the Agency. Perhaps you could advise specific areas of interest and we may be able to help facilitate contact with appropriate elements of our research organizations. Pete McHugh FAA System Safety Plans Division, ASY-301 (202) 267-8670 From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ei7gm@iol.ie (Paul Kearney) Subject: FAA / CAA RULES Info? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line Reply-To: ei7gm@iol.ie Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:01 Message-ID: Greetings. The Boeing 737-300/400/500 ( which IS an AIRLINER ! with auto-brake on retraction! ) I would like info on where to get by e-mail / surfing , the main differences in FAA / CAA Rules on parameters used on the 737-3/4/500. Regards To All. Rumours/Pointers/Strings/Integers and even Environment-Divisions to .... ei7gm @ iol.ie From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:02 Message-ID: It would be helpful to know the approximate volume of fuel tanks in a large aircraft such as a 747, in order to calculate the volume of liquid nitrogen that would be required to fill them with vapor at an appropriate pressure (which presumably would have to increase as the aircraft makes its descent, in order to avoid stresses from pressure differential inside and outside the tank). I seem to recall the volume ratio between liquid nitrogen and nitrogen vapor is around 1:1000 at sea level, but I have no references here to check this. From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:02 Message-ID: >It would be helpful to know the approximate volume of fuel tanks in a >large aircraft such as a 747 ... According to Boeing's web pages, the 747-400's fuel capacity varies from 53,765 to 57,285 gallons (203,520 to 216,850 liters) depending on engine type. Why the engines make a difference is beyond me. Also, this may be the base tankage, exclusive of the optional 3,300 gallon (12,490 liter) tanks in the horizontal tail -- it's not clear. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Nov 5 04:14:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: root@nntpa.cb.lucent.com Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Date: 05 Nov 96 04:14:02 Message-ID: In this very week's Aviation Leak there is an article about McDonnell-Douglas' proposal to convert the C-17 freighter to a civilian version, the MD17. One of the changes mentioned in the article is to remove the inert-gas system. Thus this system must cost enough so as to repay the design costs of removing it. Geno Rice From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Airbus on a roll Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:34 Message-ID: Today's Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, November 6th) has a report that Airbus has landed an order from USAir for 120 aircraft, a mix of A319s and A320s. In addition, the deal includes options for an additional 120 to 180 aircraft. Deliveries are due to start in 1998 at a rate of 30 to 40 planes per year. Boeing reportedly lost the order, in part, because 737 production is already being pushed and Boeing was unable to offer as high a delivery rate as quickly. (A week or so ago, the WSJ reported that Airbus had been an early favorite for the expected USAir order but that Boeing had recently taken the lead.) The article suggests that USAir will dispose of its DC-9s and MD-80s along with the Fokker F-28s and F-100s, plus the BAe-146s which are still owned (but not operated) by USAir. This order comes only a few months after Airbus scored another coup against the 737 on Boeing's home turf with United's August 22nd order for 24 A319s. (Boeing was offering additional 737-300s -- not the 737-700 as the longer wing could not be accomodated by some of the gates at the new Denver International Airport.) On Monday, Airbus also announced an order from Emirates for 16 A330-200s, with options for another seven. A330 orders have been scarce for a while, with the 777 winning most competitions. It's interesting to note that Emirates was scheduled to have received three 777-200s this year, with four IGW ("B-market") versions due next year and seven more on option. (The A330-200s will replace A310s and A300-600s.) Another large A330 may be near, too. Asiana recently ordered 18 A321s (the first in Southeast Asia?) with deliveries starting in 1998 and going thru 2005. Asiana reportedly is also negotiating for 20 A330s, with options for another two, with 1999-2005 deliveries. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:35 Message-ID: The media has been reporting that a possible cause has been identified for the October 2nd crash of AeroPeru flight 603, into the Pacific Ocean near Lima, the third 757 crash. NOTE -- this is nothing close to an official determination, though it doesn't sound like complete bunk as did much of the early information on this crash. Reportedly, maintenance crews placed duct tape over the static ports (which feed the airspeed, altitude indicators, and verticle speed indicators) to protect them during "polishing" of the aircraft, then forgot to remove the tape. This would explain the complete instrumentation failure, though it fails to explain why the pilots did not recognize a problem with the airspeed indicator during takeoff and either abort the takeoff or immediately return to the airport. (The pilots first reported problems and requested a return to Lima about five minuts into the flight.) It sounds very much like the Birgenair 757 crash, except in that case they had two good systems but failed to use them. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:36 Message-ID: >>In <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc >>Bauwens) writes: > >>>Again, misleading/sloppy/dishonest job by the press? >>> >>>No matter how hard a bunch of prejudiced Germans tried to >>>ascribe the responsibility to the Turkish crew, I thought >>>it had been generally recognized that the key factor in the >>>accident was the conflicting reactions of two computers or >>>software to a plugged pitot tube? >>> >>>One of them producing an (incorrect) overspeed warning while the >>>other, a stall warning. Faced with 50/50 odds, the pilots picked >>>the wrong bet... According to the translation of the CVR I saw, the capt. on the Birgenair 757 exclaimed he had no airspeed during ground roll, but the F/O did. All the Capt. had to do was reach forward and move his ADC switch from NORM to R. Up to the end the F/O repeated that his instruments were correct, as they agreed with the standby instruments. After failure to cover the pitot tubes, you can blame that one on a lack of Crew Resource Management. Ironically, the latest rumour on the AeroPeru 757 is that the static holes were taped over. That makes for a much more difficult scenario. Everything would be normal until climbing out. Airspeed would decrease about 146 Kn for every thousand feet altitude, and altitude would not change. In all probability, there was a small leak in the taped ports, as the F/O said they were getting GPWS warn while the altimeter said 10,000. Both airplanes were last minute substitutions. RD From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: michael keenan Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: The University of Manitoba Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:36 Message-ID: On 5 Nov 1996, Edward Austin MSc wrote: > Not too different from another crash initially blamed on the Turkish > crew by the American press, that of the THY DC-10 back in March '74. > This crash initially ascribed to pilot error turned out to be faulty > design of the cargo door latching mechanism. Mc D-D (and the American > press) implying the crew being "Turkish" was somehow to blame. As I understand it, they tried to blame not the pilots but the Algerian baggage handler who shut the door. The story is told very well in a book called Destination Disaster. Mike From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:36 Message-ID: In article , Jonathan Griffitts writes: |> I've been lurking, waiting to see any more information on the Peruvian |> 757 crash a couple of weeks ago. All I've seen so far is very sketchy |> and self-contradictory information from the newspaper. |> |> >From what I can tell, it would appear that the 757 suffered some kind of |> major failure in the electronics. The pilot was quoted as saying that |> "the computers are going crazy" and that he did not know where he was. |> He pleaded for a guide plane to help him navigate back to the airport. |> Then somehow the plane went into the water. |> |> This sounds like it COULD be the ultimate glass-cockpit horror story: |> they suffered an electrical or electronic failure that was so complete |> that it left the plane uncontrollable. Is this is the event that the |> glass-cockpit opponents have been predicting? |> |> However I would be quicker to believe that the computers did something |> unexpected, and the pilots were so distracted that they forgot about |> flying the airplane. Or perhaps they got disoriented under night/low- |> visibility conditions and lost control that way. |> |> Is there any more information out there yet? There are several things to consider with the glass cockpit horror story, though. First, you have the standby instruments which run from a DC (battery) bus, which even if you lose the primary flight displays, you can still rely on. These instruments typically have alternate air data inputs from the primary systems to eliminate common points of failure. The other is that the flight controls are partitioned systems from the displays, so even if the flight displays all went south, there would have to be a more common or drastic failure to take the flight controls with it. I, too, am interested in hearing what becomes of this incident. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 295-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:37 Message-ID: In article , jcg@qadas.com says... >I've been lurking, waiting to see any more information on the Peruvian >757 crash a couple of weeks ago. All I've seen so far is very sketchy >and self-contradictory information from the newspaper. > >>From what I can tell, it would appear that the 757 suffered some kind of >major failure in the electronics. The pilot was quoted as saying that >"the computers are going crazy" and that he did not know where he was. >He pleaded for a guide plane to help him navigate back to the airport. >Then somehow the plane went into the water. > >This sounds like it COULD be the ultimate glass-cockpit horror story: >they suffered an electrical or electronic failure that was so complete >that it left the plane uncontrollable. Is this is the event that the >glass-cockpit opponents have been predicting? Its way to early to speculate, although, I have no doubt tha the opponents of the glass cockpit will try to point to this even though they have no evidence as to what happened and why. Under the FARs the above should not be possible. I also think your statement below may be a bettter desciption (the part about being distracted, etc.). Also, I thought the visibility was day/vfr although not without haze/some clouds. >However I would be quicker to believe that the computers did something >unexpected, and the pilots were so distracted that they forgot about >flying the airplane. Or perhaps they got disoriented under night/low- >visibility conditions and lost control that way. > >Is there any more information out there yet? Not reliable info. Everyone needs to wait for the official accident report. From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:37 Message-ID: >>This sounds like it COULD be the ultimate glass-cockpit horror story: >>they suffered an electrical or electronic failure that was so complete >>that it left the plane uncontrollable. >Under the FARs the above should not be possible. Huh? At best, assuming the design meets the FARs as certified, the above should be exceedingly unlikely. That's not the same as "not possible." >Also, I thought the visibility was day/vfr although not without >haze/some clouds. AeroPeru flight 603 departed Lima at 12:42 am (just after midnight) and crashed at approximately 1:10 am. Lima had light winds of 4 kts. from WSW; visibility was 3.75 miles with an 800 ft. overcast ceiling. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: radagast@DELETE_THIS.worldnet.att.net (Radagast the Brown) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: The White Council Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:37 Message-ID: On 05 Nov 96 04:14:01 , eaustin@islandnet.com (Edward Austin MSc) wrote: >On 5 Oct 1996 03:33:07 GMT, rickydik@ix.netcom.com(RD Rick) wrote: > >>In <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc >>Bauwens) writes: > >>>Again, misleading/sloppy/dishonest job by the press? >>> >>>No matter how hard a bunch of prejudiced Germans tried to >>>ascribe the responsibility to the Turkish crew, I thought >>>it had been generally recognized that the key factor in the >>>accident was the conflicting reactions of two computers or >>>software to a plugged pitot tube? >>> >>>One of them producing an (incorrect) overspeed warning while the >>>other, a stall warning. Faced with 50/50 odds, the pilots picked >>>the wrong bet... The odds are *not* 50/50. There's a standby attitude instrument with an independent power source in case the engine driven generators quit. There's also an alternate air source for the air data computers (but on most airplanes, it must be selected manually). Any trained airline crew faced with conflicting primary displays would automatically check that. Whether *those* was also affected by the plugged pitots, or whether this crew failed to use it, remains for the professional accident investigators to determine. If there's a cvr transcript out yet, I haven't seen it. But I know of at least one B727 that lost all of its airspeed indicators upon rotation (the connections broke; the weather was RVR 600, and rotten all the way to destination). The crew just flew attitude and throttle position all the way to destination. That's a little more difficult with the computerized airplanes, because the pilots no longer have a good feel for what the throttle position or fuel flow should be, but I imagine it could be done. >Not too different from another crash initially blamed on the Turkish >crew by the American press, that of the THY DC-10 back in March '74. >This crash initially ascribed to pilot error turned out to be faulty >design of the cargo door latching mechanism. Mc D-D (and the American >press) implying the crew being "Turkish" was somehow to blame. Maybe. I didn't know that that one had been blamed on the crew. But the Aero Peru crew should have caught taped-up static ports on their preflight if that is, indeed, determined to be the cause of the crash. R From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:37 Message-ID: >If there's a cvr transcript out yet, I haven't seen it. It's on the web (isn't everything?) -- the transcript and all sorts of other info on the Birgenair 757 crash can be found at http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/techfak/persons/ladkin/FBW.html#B757-BirgenAir >But I know of at least one B727 that lost all of its airspeed indicators >upon rotation ... The crew just flew attitude and throttle >position all the way to destination. That's a little more difficult with >the computerized airplanes, because the pilots no longer have a good feel >for what the throttle position or fuel flow should be, but I imagine it >could be done. I once sat next to a United 767 co-pilot who had worked on United's training program for A320 pilots. He referred to the A320 as a "career killer" because its pilots are so detached from fundamental flying skills, those skills atrophy. The 727 is still a pretty basic machine, so it's not surprising that the loss of some key instruments wasn't fatal in the case you describe. All three of the 757 crashes (assuming the taped-up static ports report is true for AeroPeru 603) display varying degrees of lapse of basic flying skills, and the 757 keeps the pilots a lot closer to flying than an A320. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: khobar@paloverde.com (Paul Nixon) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Zippo Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:37 Message-ID: In article , eaustin@islandnet.com says... > >Not too different from another crash initially blamed on the Turkish >crew by the American press, that of the THY DC-10 back in March '74. >This crash initially ascribed to pilot error turned out to be faulty >design of the cargo door latching mechanism. Mc D-D (and the American >press) implying the crew being "Turkish" was somehow to blame. Actually, I think you'll find that there Turkish ground crewman who bent the cargo door handle flush with the plane. The door was never securely closed to begin with, and for whatever reason, this ground crewman never wondered about why he couldn't get the handle to close the way it should. McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. But that doesn't change the fact that the ground crewman was the one who was responsible for making sure the door was properly closed. Regards, Paul Nixon From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:37 Message-ID: >bent the cargo door handle flush with the plane. The door was never >securely closed to begin with, and for whatever reason, this ground >crewman never wondered about why he couldn't get the handle to close >the way it should. The cargo door handle wasn't bent, part of the internal locking mechanism was bent. The ground worker never wondered because the difference in force between locking a properly closed cargo door and bending the mechanism was almost imperceptible. This was one of the key complaints about the design -- there was almost no feedback that the door was not properly closed and locked. >McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an >earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. And a similar failure during ground testing three months before the DC-10's first flight. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: FAA Human Factors Team Report (fwd) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:38 Message-ID: I do hope that this is "on-topic" enough to be of interest. Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 19:43:22 -0400 Subject: FAA Human Factors Team Report The FAA Human Factors Team report on "The Interfaces Between Flightcrews and Modern Flight Deck Systems" is now available on the FedWorld system and the Flight Standards World Wide Web home page. The name of the file is INTERFAC.PDF and is in Adobe Acrobat format. FedWorld can be accessed either by modem or by the Internet using FTP. The dialup number is 703-321-3339 (No. 8,1). Users should go to the FAA library of files (FAA-MAIN) and download the file. For Internet users of FedWorld, FTP access is through ftp://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/faa-main/interfac.pdf World Wide Web access is through http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/interfac.pdf. In a couple of days there will also be a link from the Aircraft Certification Service -- Certification of Products and Parts home page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/air/100home.htm. The INTERFAC.PDF file is approximately 950 kb in size. From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "W. Warnick" Subject: Re: Human factors relation to cabin crew Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CADVision Development Corp. Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:38 Message-ID: Re: Human Factors and Cabin Crrew Gary, Could you be more specific in what you are looking for. I am a CRM program facilitator and developer and need to to know exactly what you ar after. If you are wondering whether or not cabin crews should or need to be included in CRM programs, the answwer is is YES. I train air crrews, not pilots and F/A's. If you are looking for technical information or ergonomiccal information, I wish you luck as much of the available info isn't F/A specific. Please feel free to contact me for any further information. Wendy From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: AAEEE4P@snds.com Subject: Red Plague Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sundstrand Corporation Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:38 Message-ID: I need some specific information about the phenomenon nicknamed "red plague". This is where silver plated copper wire in aircraft applications will corrode to destruction, leaving a spaghetti of insulation and red residue. I have two Lockheed aircraft being cited as examples, the P3 and the C130. Several questions arise. What kind of wire insulation was used, and will different insulation help? What kind of wire was the silver plated type replaced with? (In some High Temp. environments tin plated is not acceptable, and nickel plated does not solder easily). Is this a "main" harness problem or widespread in the aircraft. What about electronics boxes, rack mount and otherwise? Has this been documented in detail somewhere? I have been involved with the design and maintenance of several new and old aircraft power and elecronics systems for over 10 years and I am unaware of a concern with silver plated wire until now. If there is some good info on the subject or someone with history I would appreciate it. From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:38 Message-ID: IMacduff wrote: > To end it all, orbital speed is the ultimate limit for point to point > travel on earth. SAw a report on TV with an argument that I had not considered. I have not checked the facts, but here it is: If a plane could do New York Sydney in 45 minutes, would humans be able to widstand the G forces during acceleration and decelaration phases ? If not, we will have to wait for "gravity fields" such as Star Trek to neutralise the acceleration and deceleration effects on the passengers. And we are not quite there yet. From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: ETOPS: multi-engine fails Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:38 Message-ID: >> On 28 Oct 1996, Keith Barr wrote: >> > Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, >> > unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? It seems to me that if you >> > have two engines die, no matter how many you have, they are all likely >> > to go. Aviacsa in Mexico had a few BAe-146 about five years ago. The aft section of a #3 engine exploded in cruise, sending shrapnel into the cabin (missed everyone) and into #4, which it killed. Somehow, losing two engines on one wing killed the fuel supply to one of the others, so they landed in Campeche on one engine. They soon traded the BAe-146 fleet for Fo-100. RD From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cd@birch119.cray.com (Chris Dickson) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Cray Research a subsidiary of Silicon Graphics, Inc. Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:39 Message-ID: In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: > In article faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > >ingestion, but as of a year ago when I saw the records as part of > >researching an ETOPS video I was producing, there was not a single case of > >both engines in a twin failing for different causes, simultaneously or > >otherwise. > > Does that include the pilot pulling the plug on the wrong engine as part > of an engine-out procedure? :-) In January '89 there was a British Midland 737-400 (Flt BD-92) which crashed just short of the runway at East Midlands airport, England. A fan blade had failed on one engine. The crew shut down the wrong one and for various reasons did not realize it until the engine failed completely late on final. The AAIB reports online don't seem to go back that far - but there was an April 89 Flight international editorial on the potential ETOPS implications of this crash. This can be found at : http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/risks/Risks-8/risks-8.59.txt Some people would say that one engine becoming inoperable and the other being shut down does not constitute a "double failure". Such semantic quibbling is irrelevant. If the engines aren't running, they're not running. er.... That's it. From kls Wed Nov 6 05:12:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: FAA / CAA RULES Info? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 06 Nov 96 05:12:39 Message-ID: In article , ei7gm@iol.ie says... > >Greetings. > >The Boeing 737-300/400/500 >( which IS an AIRLINER ! with auto-brake on retraction! ) > I suspect you are refering to the brakes to stop the wheel from spinning prior to its retraction into the wheel well >I would like info on where to get by e-mail / surfing , the main differences >in FAA / CAA Rules on parameters used on the 737-3/4/500. > Which particular part of the FARs (FAA)? Do you mean CAA as in terms of the CARs which were the precursers tofthe FARs or do refer to the CAA which is a term that describes the Civil Airwirthiness Authorities in many different countries. From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bob Standaert Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Organization: Texas A&M University Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:22 Message-ID: Several of the comments on inert gases caught my attention, so I thought I'd offer up some tidbits. Even though the point is moot, there are some interesting things to think about. Nitrogen gas has a density of 1.25 g/l at 0 C, 1 atmosphere pressure. For the liquid, it is 808 g/l at -196 C, for a volume ratio of 646:1. If the fuel capacity of a 747 is about 200 kl, you would need 250 kg, or 310 l, of lN2, to replace it. The dewars (vacuum jacketed storage vessels) we have hold 200 l of lN2 and weigh about 120 kg empty. Two full tanks on a plane adds up to about 560 kg plus plumbing and hardware, and the cost for the liquid would be about $40 at our price. (Perhaps the airlines could make up for it by charging the passengers extra for the spectacle of the refill -- lots of fog and noise coming from the belly of the plane!) Nitrogen boils at -196 C and cannot be liquefied above its critical temp of -147 C. The liquid is therefore kept and handled in insulated containers at ambient pressure or a bit above; our large stationary tank (about 40,000 l) is kept at 100-150 PSI, and the 200 l-dewars are rated at 200 PSI). A failure in the overpressure protection would lead to rupture of the tank, and smaller dewars are usually open to the atmosphere. We use the stuff as the liquid and for the most part don't want it to evaporate. If you want the gas, you need to heat the liquid. High pressure gas would probably present too much of a weight problem. A big, steel lab cylinder (10 x 55") holds about 8500 l (gas at ambient pressure), weighs in at around 75 kg, and is pressurized to 2500 PSI. It seems to take a lot of steel to contain that pressure, even for a small-diameter tank. Aluminum might save you a third to a half, but the tanks are still heavy. You can liquefy CO2 at a modest pressure (around 1000 PSI) and stuff about twice as much (in terms of net gas volume) into the same tanks. If the head is sheared off any high pressure gas cylinder, as happens occasionally when one is mishandled, it becomes a missile that can penetrate concrete block walls, and presumably aircraft hulls. Weight and headaches aside, liquid nitrogen is not without its hazards. Some things you need to worry about from a leak: 1. Oxygen displacement. A big leak that evaporated in a confined area would asphyxiate any living being within (what is the volume of the cargo hold?). 2. Cold damage. Cooling things to -200 C tends to change their mechanical properties. The classic demonstration is the tennis ball or rubber band (or, in the old days, goldfish) cooled in lN2 that shatters into bits when struck. Severe frostbite develops quickly on skin exposed to lN2. Plastics crack, adhesives fail, and metals become more brittle. Thermal contraction, water condensation, or ice formation could cause a mechanical malfunction, and a big leak of liquid into the fuel tank would give you kerosene gummi-bears. You get the idea. 3. Oxygen condensation. Surfaces cooled by lN2 can condense O2 from the air; lO2 has the nasty property of reacting with any combustible material it touches, often explosively. In the lab, this problem arises most commonly when air gets into a liquid-nitrogen cooled vapor trap. This all leads up to a point that's already been made -- an lN2 system would be a headache. On-the-fly deoxygenation of air may be feasible, but I am not an expert in the area of gas separations. My impression is the technology has come a long way in the last 20 years. Reliable, noncryogenic, small scale separators (20,000 l/hr) capable of generating N2 of 95+% purity are available for on-the-ground installations. However, I have no idea how big they are, how much they cost, or how much power they consume. One commonly used separation method is to pass compressed air (50-500 PSI) over selectively permeable, hollow-fiber polymeric membranes. Oxygen and water permeate to the inside of the fibers, and the nitrogen (78% of air) just sails on by. The oxygen can be recovered, too. Nice systems, and no moving parts outside the compressor. I'll leave it to others to comment on the practicality of a small mechanical or ram-air compressor to do the job. As for centrifugal gas separation in the engine, which one post mentioned, the only thing spun out of this scenario is a yarn. Regards to all, Bob Standaert Assistant Professor of Chemistry Texas A&M University From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bob Standaert Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Organization: Texas A&M University Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:22 Message-ID: One other tidbit -- a brief writeup in Chemical and Engineering News (4 March 1985, p. 26) on nitrogen/oxygen separation offers this: [A spokesman from Monsanto] suggests that units may be installed on such aircraft as the C5A transport to blanket fuel tanks. At present, these planes carry tanks of liquid nitrogen and must land at a source of liquid nitrogen for every third refueling. (Monsanto makes separators.) Regards, Bob S. From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Vangal Venkatesh Subject: Stage 3 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:22 Message-ID: I thought that the airlines are placing large orders now to comply with the Stage 3 noise requirements by end of 1999. If it looks like Boeing can't keep up with production of 737s, maybe the FAA should move the requirements to 2002 or something. Vangal. From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tassio@watson.ibm.com Subject: F-100 crash in Sao Paulo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:22 Message-ID: I have been following the news in Brazilian newspapers on the cause of the TAM F-100 crash in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Two members of a maintenance crew at the airport witnessed the inadvertent deployment of the thrust reverse in the right engine as the airplane was about to get airborne. The maintenance records indicate uncommanded thrust reverse deployment in flight for this very engine in the last few weeks. I don't know which maintenance actions were taken as a result of this, but if there were none, TAM will probably be found negligent. Of course, none of this is official report yet. This particular airport has a short runway. If the deployment had occurred prior to V1, the crew would have aborted the take-off. If the deployment had occurred later in flight, I imagine the aircraft would have enough speed to return to the airport. From what I know, power requirements for take-offs consider only an engine *failure*, which translates to me as thrust = 0, but never this kind of situation where an engine might actually be contributing with negative thrust. Am I correct? From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:23 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |> The media has been reporting that a possible cause has been identified |> for the October 2nd crash of AeroPeru flight 603, into the Pacific |> Ocean near Lima, the third 757 crash. NOTE -- this is nothing close |> to an official determination, though it doesn't sound like complete |> bunk as did much of the early information on this crash. |> |> Reportedly, maintenance crews placed duct tape over the static ports |> (which feed the airspeed, altitude indicators, and verticle speed |> indicators) to protect them during "polishing" of the aircraft, then |> forgot to remove the tape. |> |> This would explain the complete instrumentation failure, though it |> fails to explain why the pilots did not recognize a problem with the |> airspeed indicator during takeoff and either abort the takeoff or |> immediately return to the airport. (The pilots first reported |> problems and requested a return to Lima about five minuts into the |> flight.) The problem would not be seen in airspeed while on the takeoff roll, as the pressure in the static system would still be that at the ground. The static system has no significant air "moving" through it that would be blocked. However, the altimeter and airspeed will distort as the plane climbs, with the airspeed showing a lower (and lowering) airspeed than actual as the plane climbs and the altimeter staying on the ground. Classic ground school question... Don't worry--it gets a lot of people. Your observation would be correct if the pitot tube were blocked... -- David Medin Phone: (319) 295-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tom Stybr Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Organization: Boeing - Wichita Division Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: Tom.Stybr@boeing.com Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:23 Message-ID: It has been reported that a maintenance crew covered the static ports with duct tape during a skin polishing task and then neglected to remove it. The pilot also failed to notice the covered ports during his walk-around (if he did one). This explains the pilot not knowing his airspeed or altitude. The static lines would have had higher than actual static pressure causing instruments to read lower altitude than actual (his ground prox alarm was sounding). The airspeed instruments use both static ports and pitot probes to determine airspeed. Dense fog contributed to no visual checks of the instrument readings, the pilot became disoriented, you know the rest. -- Thanx for your interest. Tom If you think I speak for the Boeing company you are, as George Carlin puts it, stupid, crazy, or full of s#&@. From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: Praxis - Bjxrn Erling Flxtten Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: Organization: Telenor Online Public Access Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:23 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > ... > > Reportedly, maintenance crews placed duct tape over the static ports > (which feed the airspeed, altitude indicators, and verticle speed > indicators) to protect them during "polishing" of the aircraft, then > forgot to remove the tape. > > This would explain the complete instrumentation failure, though it > fails to explain why the pilots did not recognize a problem with the > airspeed indicator during takeoff and either abort the takeoff or > immediately return to the airport. (The pilots first reported > problems and requested a return to Lima about five minuts into the > flight.) > > ... An obstructed static port would not be noticed during takeoff because the surrounding static pressure doesn't change until the aircraft starts climbing into thinner air. The effect of an obstructed static port during climb would be a lower indicated airspeed than correct (the airspeed indicator is continually feeded with the static pressure that existed on the ground, instead of the gradually lower static pressure that exists higher up in thinner air. Indicated airspeed would then be equal to the sum of correct static and dynamic pressure feeded by the presumed unobstructed dynamic port minus the incorrect too high static pressure feeded by the obstructed static port). If the pilots are unaware of the problem then they would lower to nose to increase what they believe is a too low airspeed. This could possibly lead to an overspeed condition, with a resulting airframe breakup. If the dynamic port is obstructed then the problem would be the opposite (as I believe it was with the 757 accident in the Caribbean). The airspeed indicator would register zero airspeed as the aircraft takes off, because no dynamic pressure reaches the airspeed indicator. Then as the aircraft starts climbing, the airspeed indicator compares the pressure from the obstructed dynamic port (which remains the same), with an ever-decreasing pressure from the static port. This results in an ever-increasing indicated airspeed irregardless of the actual airspeed, as long as the aircraft continues to climb (the airspeed indicator has in fact become an altimeter). The crew would raise the nose to combat what they believe is a too high airspeed, eventually stalling the aircraft. If they do not become aware of the problem, they would stall the aircraft all the way to the ground (which is what I believe happened in the Caribbean). However, theory aside, isn't it amazing that modern aircraft with all this technology is not equipped with a sensor to check for obstructed static and / or dynamic ports? It would be fairly simple to sound an alarm if for instance increasing wheel-speed on take-off doesn't correspond with an increasing dynamic pressure. Or to sound an alarm if engine-power and climb-attitude doesn't correspond with a decreasing static pressure. I believe all the sensors are already in place, so all you would need is some additional software logic. This could be of assistance to the pilots, because a situation with obstructed static or dynamic ports is extremely confusing since you can loose both the airspeed indicator, the altimeter and the climb indicator. Bj=F8rn Erling Fl=F8tten praxis@online.no From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:23 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > >>>This sounds like it COULD be the ultimate glass-cockpit horror story: >>>they suffered an electrical or electronic failure that was so complete >>>that it left the plane uncontrollable. > >>Under the FARs the above should not be possible. > >Huh? At best, assuming the design meets the FARs as certified, the >above should be exceedingly unlikely. That's not the same as "not >possible." > Unless there is direct evidence to the contrary, you have to assume it met the certification requirements. And if it did, the design of the aircraft along with the requirements of FAR 25 would lead anyone who is involved in this type of work to conclude that saying "exceeding unlikely" is a understatement. To lose everything that leaves the aircraft uncontrollable you would need multiple unrelated failures to occur, in certification terms it would have a probabilty of less that 10-9 (probably alot less). Of course nothing is impossible, but to base conclusion on the small amount of words transmitted by the pilot is speculation at best, unless there is someone out there was was capable of reading his mind at the time of the accident. From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: Mit Robertson Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: uva Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:23 Message-ID: >The media has been reporting that a possible cause has been >identified for the October 2nd crash of AeroPeru flight 603, into the >Pacific Ocean near Lima, [snip.] >Reportedly, maintenance crews placed duct tape over the static >ports (which feed the airspeed, altitude indicators, and verticle >speed indicators) to protect them during "polishing" of the aircraft, >then forgot to remove the tape. >This would explain the complete instrumentation failure, though >it fails to explain why the pilots did not recognize a problem >with the airspeed indicator during takeoff and either abort >the takeoff... The static port only provides a source ambient outside air pressure with which the airspeed indicater, altimeter, & vertical speed indicator make their measurments. On the ground, it doesn't matter (much) if the ports are stopped. They air trapped inside is still at the ambient pressure. So there wouldn't have been any ill efects observable early enought to abort a takeoff. Depending on the weather, a return to the airport might have been impossible as well. Nonetheless, there's very little excuse for crashing into the ocean. From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: on volcanic ash clouds (was Re: ETOPS) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:23 Message-ID: Keith Barr wrote: >Does anyone know if there has ever been a case of multiple, simultaneous, >unrelated, turbine engine failures above V1? ^^^^^^^^^ An astonishing number of readers have submitted followups to this one suggesting one or another of the cases of 747s flying through volcanic ash clouds, and having all four engines fail as a result, as examples for Keith. Multiple engines failing from a single cause, be it a volcanic ash cloud, a hail storm, fuel stavation, or an Elvis infestation, does NOT constitute an instance of UNRELATED multiple engine failures. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: In article , cd@birch119.cray.com says... >In January '89 there was a British Midland 737-400 (Flt BD-92) which crashed >just short of the runway at East Midlands airport, England. A fan blade had >failed on one engine. The crew shut down the wrong one and for various reasons >did not realize it until the engine failed completely late on final. > >The AAIB reports online don't seem to go back that far - but there was >an April 89 Flight international editorial on the potential ETOPS implications >of this crash. This can be found at : > >http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/risks/Risks-8/risks-8.59.txt > >Some people would say that one engine becoming inoperable and the other >being shut down does not constitute a "double failure". Such semantic >quibbling is irrelevant. If the engines aren't running, they're not running. It would be better to compare only those aircraft that are approved for ETOPS. A 737 is not approved for ETOPS so its reliability does not play a role in the question. Also, As for shutting down the wrong engine. Do you know the details? Was it crew error? Was it caused by confusion due to the cockpit design? Without these and other details any comparison for use in the original question about ETOPS and reliability are meaningless From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: >It would be better to compare only those aircraft that are approved for ETOPS. >A 737 is not approved for ETOPS so its reliability does not play a role in the >question. >From p. 33 of Boeing's 737 sales brochure dated December 1991: Direct ETOPS routes save time and fuel. All three 737 models offer airlines ETOPS flexibility. ETOPS lets European charter operators serve more vacation resorts, and it lets U.S. operators serve less heavily traveled Caribbean routes with twinjet efficiency. Beyond that, the reliability of non-ETOPS very much plays a role in the evaluation of ETOPS. Non-ETOPS aircraft demonstrated the levels of reliability which led to ETOPS in the first place. Even today, a failure on a non-ETOPS aircraft may impact ETOPS aircraft -- when I was on a United 747-422 that had an in-flight engine shutdown, the pilots had a lot of paperwork to do because of ETOPS. The 747-400 is not an ETOPS aircraft, of course, but the PW4056 engines United uses on them are all but identical to the PW4060s they use on their ETOPS 767-322(ER)s. The history of those engines also had a direct impact on the ability of United to have an ETOPS rating for their PW4084- equipped 777s from the first day of service. >Also, As for shutting down the wrong engine. Do you know the details? Was it >crew error? Was it caused by confusion due to the cockpit design? Without >these and other details any comparison for use in the original question about >ETOPS and reliability are meaningless The article you quoted included a URL with the basic details. It was http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/risks/Risks-8/risks-8.59.txt Another excellent source of information on this crash is http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/techfak/persons/ladkin/FBW.html#Kegworth It's also been discussed in this newsgroup before; you might search the archives (http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html) for Kegworth. Claiming that the accident is meaningless in the context of ETOPS because YOU are ignorant of the details is a lousy argument. You had at least one pointer to start with, go look at it, don't just try to write off the points made by those who've taken the time to do a bit of research. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: Lou Scheffer wrote on 05 Nov 96 04:13:57:- > In the aviation world, safe enough is usually > one failure in 10^9 hours (this was set so that there would be no expected > failures in a popular type of airplane over the life a fleet of them). The maximum acceptable 10^-9 probability per hour of flight* of a catastrophic** failure (one which "prevents continued safe flight and landing") applies to an individual system on board. The argument in support of this in the European regulations (JAR-25 and its supporting documents) goes as follows:- 1. One crash per million hours of flight is "acceptable". (Current rate of fatal accidents is 2 per million departures, and the rate of hull losses is 1.5 per million departures.*** Given an average flight duration of 1.5 hours, you get a hull loss probability of around 1 per million hours. In other words, the accident rate we have now is "acceptable".) 2. Around 10% of all accidents are caused by equipment failure. To keep the loss rate due to all causes within the acceptable range, probability of loss due to equipment failure must be kept below 10^-7. 3. There are around 100 safety-critical systems on board. (This is a conservative estimate. The A320 has around 70, for example.) If ANY ONE of these fails, a crash could occur. To keep the loss rate due to equipment failure within the acceptable range, the probability of failure of each individual safety-critical system must therefore be kept below 10^-9. Interestingly enough, if you base the calculation on the average size of fleet of a single type combined with the length of service life of each example, with the objective of ensuring that a catastrophic failure of a safety-critical system is "not expected to occur in the service life of an entire fleet of a given type", then you get the same figure. Neat! * Note: Not quite the same thing as "one failure in 10^9 hours ". ** The targets are lower for less serious failures. In JAR, they are:- "Catastrophic" - 10^-9, "Hazardous" - 10^-7, "Major" - 10^-5, "Minor" - 10^-3. *** From Boeing's Statistical Summary. 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 Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: John1082 wrote: > Form a logistical standpoint, the DC-10 would have made more sense because > we have approximately 50 in the fleet as the KC-10. True enough, but with all the extra equipment installed, they may well have overgrossed a DC-10. Not to mention that the 747-200B with CF6 engines was *also* in the inventory in the form of the E-4B. Jennings Heilig From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: In article , Steve Lacker writes: |> michael keenan wrote: |> > The only scenario I can think of is with tri-jets. If you lose one of the |> > wing engines on a DC-10/MD-11 or an L-1011, and it's an uncontained |> > failure, I could imagine pieces of the engine getting sucked into the |> > intake of the tail engine and taking that out. ' |> |> I think there have been a number of instances where an uncontained failure |> of #2 or #3 on a 4-engine plane has taken out #1 or #4 as well. In fact, |> I find this much more likely than a wing engine on a tri-jet taking out |> the tail engine ... I thought the El-Al 747 crash in Amsterdam was attributed to just such a scenario. One engine has an uncontained failure which also affected the adjacent engine, leading to an uncontrollable airplane. Can anyone remember if the: 1. Pilot knew he had lost both engines on one wing 2. That the adverse yaw was responsible for the crash -- David Medin Phone: (319) 295-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: ETOPS Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Organization: applied research laboratories Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: Chris Dickson wrote: > > > In January '89 there was a British Midland 737-400 (Flt BD-92) which crashed > just short of the runway at East Midlands airport, England. A fan blade had > failed on one engine. The crew shut down the wrong one and for various reasons > did not realize it until the engine failed completely late on final. > > The AAIB reports online don't seem to go back that far - but there was > an April 89 Flight international editorial on the potential ETOPS implications > of this crash. This can be found at : > > http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/risks/Risks-8/risks-8.59.txt I went to that page, where I read the following: After examining systems recovered from the crashed aircraft, the AAIB is certain that the cockpit instruments correctly indicated severe vi- bration in the left engine. Investigators note, however, that pilots distrust aircraft engine vibration indicators, based on experience with earlier electromechanical instruments. Crews seem unaware that electronic indicators on later 737-300's and the 737-400 are more accurate. Another example of mythology triumphing over knowledge is the apparent perception among 737 crews that cockpit air conditioning comes solely from the right engine, and that smoke and burning smells in the cockpit tend to indicate fire in the right engine. In fact, air supplied to the cockpit comes from both engines, in a 70:30 right: left mix. This addresses some issues I have strong feelings on. If you are going to *operate* any sizeable machine, you should have more than a casual *understanding* of the operation of said machine. It doesn't matter if its a bulldozer, an airliner, or your car. This also touches on the issue Karl mentioned in another thread, that of some aircraft isolating pilots from the actual process of flying. First, the "isolation" issue, which is really one of "human factors" as is being discussed in another thread. I'm not opposed to glass cockpits in planes, nor ABS and traction control in cars- these things have their good points- however it is essential that these systems are designed and implemented so that they do NOT operate too "transparently." An example can be drawn from ABS in automobiles. In 1993, the ABS system used by Chrysler Corporation (I happen to own one of these, which is why I picked it) creates a LOT of noise and a LOT of brake pedal motion. There is NO doubt when you as a driver have passed the limits of the tires and pavement and are exercising the ABS system, and I consider this an excellent design. Unfortunately, drivers who didn't understand the system complained very vocally and in large numbers that it was "broken" and burned up a lot of warranty money having dealer technicians go over perfectly good cars. The system was redesigned to be quieter and produce less pedal movement in later cars. It is worse for this, in my opinion. Automated systems that operate "too quietly" in the cockpit are a bad idea too. It is possible to design an automated system that will help protect the aircraft, but still provide plenty of warning as to the fact that it is operating. The importance of an operator understanding the machine is apparent from the comparison with driving a car too. Much as I would like to have a "mechanical knowledge" section on drivers license tests, I realize this won't happen. The days when all drivers understood the basic operation of cars went away sometime around WWII and won't come back. Everyone drives a car, and some *will* choose to continue to drive cars without oil, with bald tires, and with spun bearings making sledghammer noises until they physically won't go any further. Fortunately, the result is generally a broken car parked in the ditch- but there aren't ditches at 30,000 feet. The airline industry does NOT have to follow that path, because not everyone and his dog needs to be an airline pilot. I think it should insure that pilots obtain a good basic understanding of the systems on each aircraft type they operate. I know that truly good pilots do this already, and I'm not talking about a detailed understanding of physics, aerodynamics, engine design, etc.- just understanding correctly and exactly which engine drives what accessories, how the hydraulics are interconnected, what various failures "feel like," etc.- the kind of knowledge that MANY people who post to this group already have. It won't prevent all mistakes, and it might not have changed the 737-400 incident... but if false "myths" about how a basic aircraft system operates are indeed rampant among operators, there IS a problem. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Seattle Times Special Report on B737 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: Between Oct 27 and Nov 3, Seattle Times ran a five-part special report on the B737 safety issue. You can find the series at Seattle Times' website, the URL is From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >Another large A330 may be near, too. Asiana recently ordered 18 >A321s (the first in Southeast Asia?) Well, first a geographical correction, Korea is in Northeast Asia or East Asia. Second, I know Taiwan's Trans Asia Airways has four A321s on order. Also, Air Macau has at least two A321s in operation, but their A321s are probably leased planes. I'm not sure. >with deliveries starting in 1998 >and going thru 2005. Asiana reportedly is also negotiating for 20 >A330s, with options for another two, with 1999-2005 deliveries. > This potential A330 order has been reported for quite a while, but it has yet to be materialzed. One or two weeks ago, when the WSJ reported the A321 order, it said Asiana would probably order Boeings for its remaining fleet expansion plan. I was kinda surprised by the report. I went to check with a Korean guy, and he told me that it appeared that Asiana might not order the A330 after all. The same guy told me earlier that Asiana was originally told by the Korean government to order from both Boeing and Airbus, because they didn't want to upset either side. Perhaps, this explains why Korean Air has one of the most "diversed" fleet in the world. From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... >I once sat next to a United 767 co-pilot who had worked on United's >training program for A320 pilots. He referred to the A320 as a >"career killer" because its pilots are so detached from fundamental >flying skills, those skills atrophy. The 727 is still a pretty basic >machine, so it's not surprising that the loss of some key instruments >wasn't fatal in the case you describe. All three of the 757 crashes >(assuming the taped-up static ports report is true for AeroPeru 603) >display varying degrees of lapse of basic flying skills, and the 757 >keeps the pilots a lot closer to flying than an A320. And what is this conclusion based on. Are you saying that since one has a sidestick and the other a conventional control column that the pilot skills will atrophy? Both are EFIS equiped aircraft so saying one is better than the other when compared to a 727 doesn't seem to be a reasonable conclusion. From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:24 Message-ID: >>I once sat next to a United 767 co-pilot who had worked on United's >>training program for A320 pilots. He referred to the A320 as a >>"career killer" because its pilots are so detached from fundamental >>flying skills, those skills atrophy. >And what is this conclusion based on. Are you saying that since one has a >sidestick and the other a conventional control column that the pilot skills >will atrophy? As was clear from my original comment, *I* was not making any determination about the effect of the A320 and similar planes on pilot skills -- I was clearly quoting a senior United pilot. >Both are EFIS equiped aircraft so saying one is better than the >other when compared to a 727 doesn't seem to be a reasonable conclusion. In my estimation (which may or may not accurately reflect the thoughts of the United pilot who referred to the A320 as a "career killer"), EFIS isn't particularly relevant. What's relevant is the protections built into the A320, which allow pilots to forget about just where the edges of the envelope are because the plane will prevent them from moving the stick, er, sidestick, too far, and the lack of feedback, such as throttles which no longer are at a certain position (either having moved there by manual action or auto-throttles) during a given phase of flight. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Michaels (Paul Michaels) Subject: Re: Photo of Pan Am 747 W/5 engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Scottish Internet Supplier Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:25 Message-ID: > I don't know how the Rolls engines are sent over, but as >I said, they can fit in a relatively inexpensive air freighter like a >C-130. Obviously, if there is a need in the future to move an assembled >engine from the manufacturer to Puget Sound in a hurry, the Antonov will >be used again. >C. Marin Faure > author, Flying a Floatplane Up until about a year ago, a Heavy Lift/Volga Dneiper An124 was being used to take RR Trents out of East Midlands. As far as I could see the engines were complete (they were wrapped so it's hard to tell). Apparently it was using EMIA up to eight times a year -so maybe Airbus was getting some of them? -- Paul Michaels, Aberdaugleddau (Milford Haven), Wales Paul Michaels From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Robert Carpenter Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Organization: Posted via CAIS Internet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: rcarpen@lan2wan.com Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:25 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > > Today's Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, November 6th) has a report > that Airbus has landed an order from USAir for 120 aircraft, a mix > of A319s and A320s. In addition, the deal includes options for an > additional 120 to 180 aircraft. Deliveries are due to start in > 1998 at a rate of 30 to 40 planes per year. Boeing reportedly lost > the order, in part, because 737 production is already being pushed > and Boeing was unable to offer as high a delivery rate as quickly. SNIP No doubt. However another story I read mentioned more attractive financial terms as well. US Air must be a fairly poor credit risk, as was Eastern when Airbus sold them all those A300s and PanAm when Airbus sold them the A310s. Robert Carpenter From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:25 Message-ID: >> Boeing reportedly lost the order, in part, because ... Boeing was >> unable to offer as high a delivery rate as quickly. >No doubt. However another story I read mentioned more attractive >financial terms as well. US Air must be a fairly poor credit risk I'm told that nobody in the financial community would have touched this deal, given USAir's financial position. (Airbus is providing 100% of the financing on this order.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Jung, Joohyun" Subject: Business Jet vs Regional Jet? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:25 Message-ID: I want to hear from you interested in characteristics of Bizz jet and Regional jet. Especially, differences of two jets concerning performance like rate of climb, field length, cruise altitude and speed as well as power plant requirement such as ratings during mission segment, fuel consumption, life, reliability and safety etc. Thank you for reading this. From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:25 Message-ID: I opened today's WSJ about 15 minutes ago and about died. USAir with Airbuses? -->USA<--ir!! Bummer. I fly USAir more frequently than any airlines and am disappointed to see my favorite airline corrupted. Oh, well -- Steve Wolf is obviously an A320 fan. I expect that the first new Airbuses will sport some new paint scheme. The article made no mention of any other orders, but I suspect that USAir may yet order some Boeings -- 777s maybe. This weekend I was looking through the aviation books at Media Play and came across the book "Desert Airliners" and saw the famed USAir 146s lined up. WOW!! But Karl's post said they were leased out. I'd not heard that. Who has them? Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Fri Nov 8 05:24:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: Alan Constant Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Bruce Municipal Telephone System Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 08 Nov 96 05:24:25 Message-ID: michael keenan wrote: > > On 5 Nov 1996, Edward Austin MSc wrote: > > > > ....... The story is told very well in a book > called Destination Disaster. There's another excellent book on that crash called "The Last Nine Minutes" - although some of the parts about the bodies and how they identified them are a bit gruesome. Alan Constant From news Thu Nov 7 04:23:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!netcom.com!rdd From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom19.netcom.com Organization: Adaptive Information Systems -- A Hitachi Company Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 05:42:47 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Woodhams wrote: > > "P. Wezeman" writes: > >this purpose. The newer of these two aircraft, the C-17, has a device > >that separates ambient air into its two main constituents, oxygen and > >nitrogen, and sends the nitrogen produced to the fuel tanks. As I > > Can anyone tell me how this device works? I would guess some chemical > absorbs oxygen from the air flow (leaving nitrogen for the tanks) and > is periodically heated to expel the oxygen. > > [Moderator's note: Regarding the C-17, one of the test team members > told me that they used a compressor and, since it acts like a > centrifuge, they tapped off the compressed gases, being of different > densities, at different radiuses, or so he thought. I seem to recall > that the unit is cylindrical, but I may have been looking at a tank > and not a compressor. It sounded good to me, but that doesn't mean > it's true. MFS] The centifuge idea is unlikely to be real: separating gasses this way is non-trivial. The three basic options are liquification and subsequent fractional distillation (most effective), chemical O2 absorbtion (OK, but what if the O2 scrubber wears out, letting un-scrubbed air into the system?), or molecular sieves (which are slow, but used on the F16 to collect O2). My bet would be distillation, particularly if you can grab air from outside at a low ambient temperature. Malc. From news Thu Nov 7 04:26:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!rdd From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom19.netcom.com Organization: The University of Iowa Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 05:44:20 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, in a posting by Scott Odle, the sci.aeronautics moderator wrote: > Moderator's note: > Unlike the laity, who frequently say that "you can't put a price on a > human life", you can do exactly that. When I was in college in the > late '60s, the price the California Department of Transport (now > Caltrans) put on one life was $100,000 per year. That is, if an > improvement was projected to save one life per year, the Department > would only proceed with the improvement if the cost was less than > $100,000 per year. For improvements that didn't require continuing > maintainence, I believe the criterion was one life in five years. > > Since airliners aren't falling out of the sky with great regularity > because the ullage isn't filled with inert gas, I'd say that it's not > likely to happen. Maybe someone would like to ask the FAA, NTSB, and > major airlines what their criterion (price per life) is? Also ask the > airlines how much money they're saving on those plastic bottles, of > course. MFS] I read several years ago that, for purposes of public policy in the United States, the value of a human life was set at about two million dollars; that is, the government would spend up to that amount to save one life. This is a calculation based on what economists call revealed choice. According to this principle the value that our society places on a life can be judged by the risks that we take voluntarily when we drive cars, operate farm machinery, work as police officers, etc. in pursuit of our goals. Most industrialized countries have come up with some such value: some higher, some lower. Of course, this applies only to random lives and not to such things as rescuing trapped miners after a cave-in where we are working to save specific people. I have the strong impression that our spending on airliner safety is anomalously high, but if anyone has any numbers that would support of contradict this I would like to see them. The whole point of putting a monetary value on a human life is not to express our philosophy of capitalism (Rule of acquisition number 157: Put a price on everything.) but to allow tradeoffs of our finite resources so that we are saving the greatest possible number of lives within our means. If it would cost ten million to save a life by improving airline safety but it would cost one million to save a life by installing traffic signals at dangerous road intersections, then we would save ten times as many people for the same cost by installing the signals. Others have noted a disproportionate concern with air safety compared with other dangers. Some say that since so many die at once in a crash that it has a strong impact on the national consciousness. Thomas Wolfe suggested in his book "The Right Stuff" that pilots as a group do not care to believe that they are subject to random danger not under their control, and so have taken to tracing every mishap back to its cause by some human error in judgement, procedure, training, design, or workmanship and in so doing have systematically eliminated these causes. Others say that airline passengers find danger in a plane to be less acceptable than danger in a car that they control. Busses and trains do have similar safety to airliners, which would support this theory. Perhaps the fact that progress in airliner design tends to come in generations as new technology accumulates (The Constellation and the DC-7 were built about the same time, then the 707 and DC-8, then widebodies) means that we have between times a surplus of aviation talent who are best employed in improving safety. If the crash of flight 800 is determined to be a fuel tank explosion it would not surprise me if, as well as eliminating the source of ignition, they look at inert gas filling, active fire suppression systems, or other protections against unknown sources of ignition in the future. This would be similar to what was done after the Comet disasters, where the square corner that was the starting point of the crack in the Comet's fuselage was changed and the fuselage was also redesigned so that a fatigue crack could no longer become self-propagating. [Moderator's note: I'd expect them to settle on open-cell foam in the tanks if they can get it approved. Not much maintainence, no routine servicing, cheap, and light. Besides, it wouldn't be another item on the MEL. MFS] Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" [Moderator's query: Seize the minnows? MFS] From news Thu Nov 7 04:27:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!rdd From: Bob Falkiner Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom19.netcom.com Organization: RJF Home Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 05:46:43 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu most likely these are gas diffusion devices that take advantage of different rates of diffusion of O2 and N2 in different media. Commecial units are available from most industrial gas suppliers for small scale applications. Since it is still diffusion, it is at the small end of the industrial use curve, but these things were not around 10-20 years ago, so still in their infancy of industrial application. I think most of the membranes are silicone/silane and take advantage of oxygen higher diffusivity. Woodhams wrote: > > "P. Wezeman" writes: > >this purpose. The newer of these two aircraft, the C-17, has a device > >that separates ambient air into its two main constituents, oxygen and > >nitrogen, and sends the nitrogen produced to the fuel tanks. As I > > Can anyone tell me how this device works? I would guess some chemical > absorbs oxygen from the air flow (leaving nitrogen for the tanks) and > is periodically heated to expel the oxygen. From news Thu Nov 7 04:30:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!netcom.com!rdd From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Cost of Weight - was Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom19.netcom.com Organization: Netcom Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 05:48:49 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu The sci.aeronautics moderator wrote: >Since airliners aren't falling out of the sky with great regularity >because the ullage isn't filled with inert gas, I'd say that it's not >likely to happen. Maybe someone would like to ask the FAA, NTSB, and >major airlines what their criterion (price per life) is? Also ask the >airlines how much money they're saving on those plastic bottles, of >course. MFS] I've heard a $Million for a life. We will someday be able to add the totals on VJ and TW800. :( After the fuel crises of the seventies, it was estimated that it cost $25 to carry a pound for a year in an airliner. Due to certain fixed costs, it would cost less to carry that pound in a big long range plane than in a light twin such as a DC-9. RD From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:40 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar Praxis - Bjxrn Erling Flxtten wrote: > However, theory aside, isn't it amazing that modern aircraft with all > this technology is not equipped with a sensor to check for obstructed > static and / or dynamic ports? The 757/767 does display ground speed on the EADI and wind speed and direction on the EHSI. These numbers come from the IRS. Seems like this information (along with pitch attitude and vertical speed) should be enough to keep you out of harms way. BTW- VS also comes from the IRS on the 757/767. From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:41 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , rcarpen@lan2wan.com wrote: > Karl Swartz wrote: > > Airbus has landed an order from USAir for 120 aircraft, a mix > > of A319s and A320s ... Boeing reportedly lost > > the order, in part, because 737 production is already being pushed > > and Boeing was unable to offer as high a delivery rate as quickly. > No doubt. However another story I read mentioned more attractive > financial terms as well. Airbus is selling the USAir airplanes at about 45 percent of their actual "retail" cost. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:41 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:24 AM 11/8/96, you wrote: >In article , cd@birch119.cray.com >says... > >>In January '89 there was a British Midland 737-400 (Flt BD-92) which crashed >>just short of the runway at East Midlands airport, England. A fan blade had >>failed on one engine. The crew shut down the wrong one and for various reasons >>did not realize it until the engine failed completely late on final. >> >>The AAIB reports online don't seem to go back that far - but there was >>an April 89 Flight international editorial on the potential ETOPS implications >>of this crash. This can be found at : >> >>http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/risks/Risks-8/risks-8.59.txt >> >>Some people would say that one engine becoming inoperable and the other >>being shut down does not constitute a "double failure". Such semantic >>quibbling is irrelevant. If the engines aren't running, they're not running. > >It would be better to compare only those aircraft that are approved for ETOPS. >A 737 is not approved for ETOPS so its reliability does not play a role in the >question. > >Also, As for shutting down the wrong engine. Do you know the details? Was it >crew error? Was it caused by confusion due to the cockpit design? Without >these and other details any comparison for use in the original question about >ETOPS and reliability are meaningless =======Twas on a dark night, as the airplane was climbing through 26,000 ft or so that a bang was heard, smoke and the smell of burning metal filled the airplane, and the airplane started vibrating so bad that the pilots probably had trouble reading the instruments. The throttles were chopped to idle, and things started to settle down. The airplane was almost overhead Midlands as it happened so the pilot decided that was the place to go. With the throttles at idle, there still was some degree of vibration and smoke kept up so an attempt to identify the bad engine was made...during which, one person who was facing the back of the airplane said it was the engine on the right which was dropping sparks and what all. This led the pilot I believe to shutdown the right engine...talk about CRM! The smoke had slowed down and the crew went about setting up for the landing at Midlands. Idle power was maintaine while the airplane descended down, spiraling I would guess so as to not get far from the runway. On final, the gear and flaps were lowered and the airplane slowed for final...then the left engine thrust was added to make it to the runway. Alas, in all the excitement and confusion of the emergency, the wrong engine had been shut down and when the thrust was advanced...the engine gave up the ghost and quit. A quick start was attempted, but since the altitude was now down to around 1500-1000 AGL,and slow, there was not a chance it would crank in time. The pilot made a valiant effort to miss a town by pulling up and giving away his airspeed, which resulted in a sink into the autobahn...not more than 3000 ft or so short of the overrun. Total destruction ensued with some left alive and others dead. Monday morning quarterbacking led to some criticism of the crew but when you are not in the game, it is hard to understand all the problems. This is from my recollection of the accident...which we know happened a long time ago. Old men forget so treat it as such. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:41 From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company In article , Scott Odle wrote: > >It would be better to compare only those aircraft that are approved for ETOPS. >A 737 is not approved for ETOPS so its reliability does not play a role in the >question. Not true. We have a number of 737s operating on 120 minute ETOPS routes. -- 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 Sun Nov 10 04:52:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:41 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , praxis@online.no says... >However, theory aside, isn't it amazing that modern aircraft with all >this technology is not equipped with a sensor to check for obstructed >static and / or dynamic ports? It would be fairly simple to sound an >alarm if for instance increasing wheel-speed on take-off doesn't >correspond with an increasing dynamic pressure. Or to sound an alarm if >engine-power and climb-attitude doesn't correspond with a decreasing >static pressure. I believe all the sensors are already in place, so all >you would need is some additional software logic. This could be of >assistance to the pilots, because a situation with obstructed static or > dynamic ports is extremely confusing since you can loose both the >airspeed indicator, the altimeter and the climb indicator. There is another consideration. If we required software/hardware installed on an aircraft in order to prevent every stupid mistake that can be made (and yes to me missing the taped ports is stupid) the aircraft would not only to expensive for any airline to buy, but to heavy to ever get off the ground. The basic question is where do we stop when it comes to adding requirements to prevent accidents due to someones dumb mistake. Should we require that the structure have an even greater factor of safety, make them carry even more fuel, etc. just because someone might decide to exceed the limitations of the aircraft or not do a proper pre-flight. From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:42 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Stage 3 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , vangal@u.washington.edu says... > >I thought that the airlines are placing large orders now to comply with >the Stage 3 noise requirements by end of 1999. If it looks like Boeing >can't keep up with production of 737s, maybe the FAA should move the >requirements to 2002 or something. Why should the requirements change simply because some airline failed to plan ahead? The same thing happened with TCAS and also happens from time to time with ADs. For noise and TCAS there was plenty of notice and a phase in process (by the percentage of aircraft in your airline). Many either did not realize or choose to ignore the impending deadlines. Maybe in the hope that the deadlines would be extended. When the deadlines came near many asked for exemptions, and as far as I know all were denied as far as TCAS was concerned. Why should safety or in the case of noise why should the congresional mandate to reduce aircaft noise (at the publics insistence) be ignored simply because of someones poor planning. From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:42 From: amtran01@aol.com Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10) What is amazing is the pilots failure in the Aeroperu and Caribbean 757 accidents to use all the instruments availible to them. In the Caribbean accident the stand-by Airspeed and altimeter would have functioned normaly. In the Aeroperu the crew would have still had Radar altitude in addition to a GS indication provided by the inertial navs. Both crews should have been able to surmise their a/s from thrust vs angle of attack. The departure in aviation from good ole stick and rudder is begining to rear its ugly head. From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:42 From: Keith Barr Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >This would explain the complete instrumentation failure, though it >fails to explain why the pilots did not recognize a problem with the >airspeed indicator during takeoff and either abort the takeoff or >immediately return to the airport. (The pilots first reported >problems and requested a return to Lima about five minuts into the >flight.) A pitot-static system failure in a large aircraft should not be an occurance that causes an accident. You can live without your airspeed indicator by knowing what power settings and approximate pitch attitudes will give you what you are looking for (i.e.: set 2800 pounds fuel flow, 5 degrees nose up, flaps 15, and you get 170 knots and level flight--these are for a 737-200 in the low 90,000 pound range at 7000 feet MSL). In a 757 you have a radar altimeter, which should be enough to keep you out of the water anyway. RA's generally don't work very high (although the one on the DC-8 I have spent a lot of time on was accurate into the 30,000 foot range). You can live without your vertical speed indicator. Your power and pitch settings will tell you what you need to know (from the above example, if you go to flaps 30, gear down, you will slow to about 145 and you will be decending at about 750 feet per minute). -- Keith Barr COMM AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI AERO/EIT barr@aerosys-eng.com AeroSys Engineering, Inc. http://www.nilenet.com/~barr Westminster, Colorado, USA From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:42 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Karl Swartz writes >Reportedly, maintenance crews placed duct tape over the static ports ... >This would explain the complete instrumentation failure, though it >fails to explain why the pilots did not recognize a problem with the >airspeed indicator during takeoff and either abort the takeoff or >immediately return to the airport. It also shows how important the Mk 1 eyeball is. The preflight walkround should have picked that up. This is what happens when you get too rushed or to careless to look at basics. -- john r. Avionics Maint. 747 757 767 777 From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:42 From: chucko@eskimo.com (Charles Albertson) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) writes: >In article , jcg@qadas.com says... >>However I would be quicker to believe that the computers did something >>unexpected, and the pilots were so distracted that they forgot about >>flying the airplane. Or perhaps they got disoriented under night/low- >>visibility conditions and lost control that way. >> >>Is there any more information out there yet? >Not reliable info. Everyone needs to wait for the official accident report. The latest explanation isn't all that esoteric. Wreckage recovered from the ocean revealed adhesive tape over inlets for the altimeter and a couple of other key instruments. Apparently applied while the outside of the aircraft was cleaned and polished by ground crew, and they forgot to remove the tape before turning the aircraft over to the flight crew. From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>>Is there any more information out there yet? >>Not reliable info. Everyone needs to wait for the official accident report. > The latest explanation isn't all that esoteric. Wreckage recovered >from the ocean revealed adhesive tape over inlets for the altimeter and a >couple of other key instruments. The NBC report last Monday evening was that "duct tape" had been placed over the inlets. Later in the week, the Peruvian equivalent of the NTSB issued a statement saying that they had recovered the section of the left side of the aircraft including these instruments and that the inlets were covered with tape (*not* duct tape, but the proper type used during cleaning of the aircraft exterior). That's a reasonable official statement (unlike the balderdash issued by various Peruvian authorities hours after the accident), though as Scott says, the full accident report is the only truly reliable and authoritative source. That is probably close to a year away. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:42 From: "Luc Van Bavel" francomedia qc ca instead. Thanks!>)> Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprynet News Service Karl Swartz wrote : >On Monday, Airbus also announced an order from Emirates for 16 >A330-200s, with options for another seven. On the same note, the Sultan of Brunei offered an Airbus A-340 for the 18th birthday of his girl. ;-o Luc. -- http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vanbavel/ Since 26SEP96 Mikoyan Design Bureau - Lockheed F-16 - Jet Squalus - FEA and Composites From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:42 From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Adaptive Information Systems -- A Hitachi Company Reply-To: malc@deltanet.com McElravy wrote: > The article made no mention of any other orders, but I suspect that USAir > may yet order some Boeings -- 777s maybe. Why? USAir's current route system certainly doesn't justify 777's, and even assuming USAir wins big in its ploy of getting London routes, most of the arguments in favor of these routes focus on the smaller markets, like Charlotte, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (smaller than, say, New York!). For these markets, the 767 and the 757 make a lot of sense, perhaps the 757-300 would be a better candidate for the sort of airline that USAir is? Or perhaps the A330 or A340, offering some cockpit commonality with the A320 class? The 777 does seem to be just a bit of a status symbol to some people (for the airline that has everything)! From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:42 From: smart@actrix.gen.nz (Quentin Smart) Subject: Re: Ansett NZ 1995 DH8 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Actrix Networks Limited Peter Dowden wrote: >On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, michael keenan wrote: >> I don't know anything about this crash. Do you have any information on the >> circumstances? >No! :-) I do not think the official report has been released which is taking a long time. They had a problem with the landing gear and where doing what the company rules stated in terms of consulting the books.. There was some confusion to where the plane was when it crashed so the pilots may have thought they were in a different location. There was also some concern expresed about the flight path that was not used often. From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:43 From: Wolfgang Decker Subject: Re: Air Brakes??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: wdecker@mindspring.com Mark A. C. Wilson wrote: > > I would like some information about the probability of a cellular or any > kind of transmitter being able to mess up the air brake system of a Fokker > 100. I am a High School student taking flying lessons, and heard about the > accident down in Brazil last Thursday, October 31st, where this Aircraft > fell into a residential neighborhood after take off due to a passanger's > cellular phone. The phone (somehow) opened the air brakes and reversed the > troutle of the right engine, slaming the aircraft into a residential > building couple minutes after takeoff. The pilot of the aircraft behind > claims to have seen the right air brake open couple times during takeoff. > If anyone could explain to me how this is possible, I would appreciate. I suppose the high frequent emission of the cell phone simply messed up the board computer systems. While these systems are pretty good covered against HF emissions coming from outside - remember the Faraday effect and look at the fuselage, made completely of metal - HF emitted inside a cage can have pretty nasty effects. Also all the computer systems are high frequency systems, and some of them run in the same frequence range as the cell phones operate. I vaguely remember an accident in Italy, also caused by someone who thought, that safety rules on an airplane are only for poeple coming from mars. Good luck Wolfgang Decker wdecker@mindspring.com Prefers to fly a glider! From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:43 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights In article , Paul Nixon writes >McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an >earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. But that doesn't >change the fact that the ground crewman was the one who was responsible >for making sure the door was properly closed. the American Airlines DC-10 crash was nothing to do with the cargo door; it was the failure of one of the wing engine pylon hinge brackets, which caused the engine to detatch, which ripped out the hydralic and pneumatic lines on that side. This, in turn, caused the L/E slats on that side to be blown back by the forward air pressure, and that flipped the aircraft onto it's back. BTW, I am assuming you are talking about the American Airlines DC-10 that went in at Chicago. The DC-10 cargo door problem was a two part problem. Subsequent tests proved that it was possible to actually have the door appear closed, but not locked. When the door blew, the differential pressure between the cabin above, and the (now depressurized) cargo hold below caused the cabin floor to bow downwards towards the cargo hold. This action impinged onto the flying control cables which made the aircraft uncontrollable. As a fix, McD.D firstly modified the cargo door so that there were a system of visable locks that positively held the door shut, and then they incorporated blow-out panels in the bottom of the cabin sidewall, so that if there was ever a major difference in pressure between the cabin and the cargo holds again, the panels would open and allow the pressure to equalize, which would stop the floor bowing onto the control cables. Philosophically speaking (!), both accidents were the results of human error more than an aircraft fault. The American Airlines one at Chicago was caused by poor maintenance procedures (they changed the engine using a fork-lift truck and cracked the bracket in the process), and the Turkish one was caused by the idiot that was responsible for closing the door. fly safe -- Pete Finlay pete@meads.demon.co.uk Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:44 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> $-1 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In aritlce $-1, Pete Finlay wrote: >In article , Paul Nixon > writes >>McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an >>earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. >the American Airlines DC-10 crash was nothing to do with the cargo door; >... BTW, I am assuming you are talking about the American Airlines DC-10 >that went in at Chicago. He didn't say anything about an American Airlines DC-10 crash, merely the loss of a cargo door from one of their DC-10s. That would be the incident involving AA flight 96 on June 12, 1972, which lost the same rear cargo door as did THY 981 while climbing out of DTW over Windsor, Ontario. Many regard that as a second "dress rehearsal" of sorts for the Paris crash. (The first was a similar incident on May 29, 1970, during testing on the ground, three months before the DC-10's first flight.) >[MD] incorporated blow-out panels in the bottom of the cabin sidewall, >so that if there was ever a major difference in pressure between the >cabin and the cargo holds again, the panels would open and allow the >pressure to equalize, which would stop the floor bowing onto the control >cables. Are you absolutely certain about this? My understanding has been that this was discussed, but never actually implemented. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:44 From: Daan Vlaskamp Subject: EL-AL crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I thought the El-Al 747 crash in Amsterdam was attributed to just such >a scenario. One engine has an uncontained failure which also affected >the adjacent engine, leading to an uncontrollable airplane. >Can anyone remember if the: > 1. Pilot knew he had lost both engines on one wing > 2. That the adverse yaw was responsible for the crash The FlightSafety Foundation has an excellent crash report on this crash. You can find it at http://www.flightsafety.org You have to look for it somewhere in the 1996 issues of "Accident Prevention". The file is in PDF (Acrobat) format. Daan Vlaskamp vlaskamp@cuci.nl From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:44 From: dhawkins@shell.one.net (Daniel C. Hawkins) Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OneNet Communications HUB News Server Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Just to throw my int(nickel/2) into the discussion of N2 in military fuel systems versus not in commercial. Let's remember that military aircraft EXPECT to get shot at (even the transports are targets, fighter pilots might say especially transports). Avoidance of fuel fires during combat justifies more extreme measures. -- To fly a kite is to hold God's hand. Dan Hawkins dHawkins@one.net From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:44 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In Robert Carpenter writes: > >Karl Swartz wrote: >> Boeing reportedly lost >> the order, in part, because 737 production is already being pushed >> and Boeing was unable to offer as high a delivery rate as quickly. > >No doubt. However another story I read mentioned more attractive >financial terms as well. US Air must be a fairly poor credit risk, as >was Eastern when Airbus sold them all those A300s and PanAm when >Airbus sold them the A310s. You forgot Braniff II (III?) in the mix with PanAm A320's. Those ended up at AmWest, another bankruptcy. Mexicana got some A320's and went through bankruptcy, too. Is there a moral to this? RD From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:44 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , eaustin@islandnet.com says... >On 5 Oct 1996 03:33:07 GMT, rickydik@ix.netcom.com(RD Rick) wrote: >>In <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc >>Bauwens) writes: >>>No matter how hard a bunch of prejudiced Germans tried to >>>ascribe the responsibility to the Turkish crew, I thought >>>it had been generally recognized that the key factor in the >>>accident was the conflicting reactions of two computers or >>>software to a plugged pitot tube? >>> >>>One of them producing an (incorrect) overspeed warning while the >>>other, a stall warning. Faced with 50/50 odds, the pilots picked >>>the wrong bet... >Not too different from another crash initially blamed on the Turkish >crew by the American press, that of the THY DC-10 back in March '74. >This crash initially ascribed to pilot error turned out to be faulty >design of the cargo door latching mechanism. Mc D-D (and the American >press) implying the crew being "Turkish" was somehow to blame. Wrong! 50/50 odds, not even close. What about the standby instruments? What about other clues that should have been noted in the cockpit such as if you have to keep pulling and reducing power (and your looking at the sky instead of the ground)? Why did they not pick up on the other clues/instruments? I don't remember any report statingthat everything else in the cockpit was inoperative (and L mean the real reports not news media reports) Also, Saying that the Turkish crew may be to blame is not the same thing as saying they are to blame because they are Turkish. From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:44 From: Magiel Venema Subject: Re: Looking for a book References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Edutour Reply-To: magiel.venema@tip.nl Carl Peters wrote: > > Does anyone know of a book printed in the mid '80's about the piston era > London-Sydney route, in which the author contrasts the old route proving > days to a modern flight duplicating all the legs traveled? Any help > appreciated regarding possible title/author. Probably you do mean the following book: 'Beyond the blue horizon' by Alexander Frater (ISBN 0-14-010065-2). It is a Penguin book. It describes the old Imperial Airways route from London to Australia, flown in modern days. Very good reading stuff! From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:44 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Detecting consumer electronics possible ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca says... > >There has been much talk lately about the impact of adult toys (laptops, >GPS, walkmans etc) on on-board navigation equipment. > >Obviously, airlines introducing fancy on board entertainment and >electronics have a way to ensure that these do not interfere with >the navigation equipment. Is it fair to assume that equipment is >available to detect/measure the emi emissions from a "thing" ? No. This equipment goes through rigorous tests both in labs and as installed in each model aircraft to ensure that no EMI/RFI exists. >Would it be theoretically possible to have such equipment on the plane >that would detect the use of passenger electronics which interfere with >the navigation equipment ? (Eg: pilot are told that there are emissions >which interfere with navigation equipment thus rendering it unreliable). Very doubtfull. There is just to many types of "toys" and to many differences between aircraft. Just because something may be a problem in one aircraft does not mean it will cause problems in another. That is why avionics/equipment installed on aircraft are approved on a model by model basis. From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:44 From: Patrick.Petit@cern.ch (Patrick PETIT) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Organization: CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research In article , rickydik@ix.netcom.com says... >There may be more A320's built than Comets, but the A320 may still have >a worse accident record, which at one time was the worst since the >beginning of the jet age. Statistics from Boeing: Accidents rate (per million of flights between 1958 and 1993) Comet 9.63 B707 6.14 DC8 5.49 Trident 5.00 DC10 2.67 A320 2.50 B747 -1/2/300 1.71 DC9 1.18 B737 -1/200 1.15 A300 .98 B727 .87 A310 .64 From kls Sun Nov 10 04:52:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 04:52:44 From: amtran01@aol.com Subject: Re: Detecting consumer electronics possible ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10) I once knew a Captain that loved to play his Game Boy on the Flight Deck enroute. I never once saw or heard of interference. I have read of some situations though. A PC magazine did a study a while back and measured the emmisions from laptops. So there must be a way to detect unfriendly games. Although if a computer or game is causing problems with avionics the a/c is at fault. The a/c should be able to operate in a very "loud" radio enviorment(i.e.Thunderstorm, Solar activity). Loose or frayed connections to the radios are most often the culprit. From kls Sun Nov 10 05:29:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 05:29:12 From: Stephan Stephany Subject: Re: Air Brakes?(Fokker-100 crash in Brazil) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INPE Mark A. C. Wilson wrote: > > I would like some information about the probability of a cellular or any > kind of transmitter being able to mess up the air brake system of a Fokker > 100. I am a High School student taking flying lessons, and heard about the > accident down in Brazil last Thursday, October 31st, where this Aircraft > fell into a residential neighborhood after take off due to a passanger's > cellular phone. The phone (somehow) opened the air brakes and reversed the > troutle of the right engine, slaming the aircraft into a residential > building couple minutes after takeoff. The pilot of the aircraft behind... > claims to have seen the right air brake open couple times during takeoff. The deployment of the right reverser was seen by an aircraft mechanic (used to perform maintenance in Learjets). He said to the officials that the right reverser opened during take-off and closed and opened again a couple of times and tried to call the control tower. Nobody knows if something else happened (spoiler deployment or some problem with flaps). The plane took-off, but couldn't climb above 100ft, stalled and crashed over houses after hitting a three store building with the wing. Most passenger were found as expecting an emergency landing and most of them probably died due to the fire. The plane was at least at 100 knts (take off is at something like 130-150 knts, I don't know exactly). The throtle of the right engine was cut because this is a "standard" (if we could say such a problem is standard) procedureif an accidental deployment happens. The Fokker 100 belonged to TAM, an airline with a very good safety record (until last Thursday), but currently growing very fast. The crashed plane was painted as "number one" (due to the award given to TAM as world best commuter airline - or something). As far as I know, TAM had only one plane crashed before: it was a Fokker 27 that tried a touch and go (after the crew realized the plane was too fast to stop) and stalled over a car, nobody on board was killed, but two persons died in the car and the plane was a total loss). Concerning the crashed Fokker 100, it was the "flagship", painted as I said as "number one" (due to that award that TAM won) and the pilot had 12,000 hs of flight (almost 10,000 flying TAM planes). The 1st. officer had 3 or 4,000 hs. The TAM fleet of Fokker 100 was mostly purchased in 1993 and I never heard here in Brazil of maintenance problems. The plane reached only 90 ft and there was little the pilot could do. It was amazing that only 3 or 4 people was killed on ground. The plane missed a school with hundreds of kids. Some people say the pilot intentionally cleared the school, but nobody knows if he had time to realize it after the 1 mile "flight". The 95 people on board died (crew of 6 plus 89 passengers). I'm not an expert, but I don't believe it was something like the problem that downed the Lauda-Air 767 few years ago (it was some sort of software error that attempted to close a closed hydraulic valve or so and opened it?). I thing there was many reports of incidents realted to accidental deployment of the thrust reversers concerning Boeing airplanes, but I believe that never happened with Fokker-100's (please, I'm *not* saying Fokker is better or not...). For sure the F-100 is not fly-by-wire and is less complex than a 767. A faulty design is maybe unlikely. Perhaps a maintenance mistake (TAM was growing very fast and under these conditions sometimes safety standards go down) Some people even think on sabotage (TAM was conquering the commuter/regional market and indeed is strange that this happened with the "number one" airplane over S. Paulo and in a flight full of high officials of several companies (that flight, the 402 was inbound to Rio de Janeiro, as part of a "shuttle" service between the two largest Brazilian cities). Who knows? It was quite sad for everybody. Concerning celular phones (again, I'm not an expert, just Cessnas and Pipers amateur driver) I don't believe it. There was confirmed reports of illegal FM broadcasting (we call pirate radios, they broadcast without licence and use equipment that do not comply the standards) interfering in the ILS of planes landing in Congonhas, but just a few and without any consequences. Of course the press is saying that, but without any "solid" assumption to support it. Due to this crash, FAA already requested an inspection on all American fleet of F-100 (it's only American Airlines that have F-100's?). Anyone has news on this subject? There is a board of DAC officials (our FAA - actually DAC belongs to the mi litary), plus Rolls-Royce, Fokker and FAA/NTSB experts working on that. The records on the voice-recorder are being analysed, but contain things like "pull, pull,..." and nothing could be concluded until now. The FDR was shipped to the USA/NTSB because it was badly damaged by the fire. It's too early to know for sure what happened, but the accidental deployment of (at least) the thrust reverser is a strong hipothesis. Stephan Stephany stephan@lac.inpe.br (National Institute for Space Research, Brazil) From kls Sun Nov 10 05:29:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 05:29:12 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Air Brakes?(Fokker-100 crash in Brazil) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Concerning the crashed Fokker 100, it was the "flagship", painted as >I said as "number one" ... If by "flagship" you mean their first F-100, it was not. The accident aircraft was PT-MRK, delivered in August, 1993 as TAM's eleventh F-100. >I thing there was many reports of incidents realted to accidental >deployment of the thrust reversers concerning Boeing airplanes Maybe I've just missed 'em, but I've never heard of any such reports, other than the Lauda crash itself. >Due to this crash, FAA already requested an inspection on all American >fleet of F-100 (it's only American Airlines that have F-100's?). In the US, American Airlines has the largest F-100 fleet with 75 aircraft. However, USAir also has a sizable fleet with 50 of them, and Midway Airlines has 12. There are also at least four F70s, which presumably would be covered by any such inspection as well. Two are owned by Ford Motor Company (presumably as biz jets) and the other two belong to a part of the Mesa Air Group and fly in America West Express colors. Braniff (the third one) had some F100s on order, and Pan Am took over some of those orders when Braniff folded, but none of these planes were ever delivered. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Nov 10 05:29:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 05:29:12 From: Stephan Stephany Subject: Re: F-100 crash in Sao Paulo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INPE tassio@watson.ibm.com wrote: > > This particular airport has a short runway. Not so short. Congonhas airport (SAO) has two runways (lengths 1,939 and 1,437 meters, don't know which was used by the ill-fated F-100). The destination airport in Rio de Janeiro city was the Santos Dumont airpot (SDU), also with 2 runways (1,323 and 1,260 meters, that is both with less than 1 stat mile) and there's a lot of mountains, etc. around (not the case in SAO). > If the deployment had occurred prior to V1, the crew would have > aborted the take-off.If the deployment had occurred later in flight, > I imagine the aircraft would have enough speed to return to the > airport From what I know, power requirements for take-offs consider > only an engine *failure*, which translates to me as thrust = 0, but > never this kind of situation where an engine might actually be > contributing with negative thrust. Am I correct? Surely, as a twin engine aircraft it should have the capability to take-off using only one engine, but with the other shut down and not "braking" the aircraft. Reportedly, the plane took off and the right thrust reverser opened and closed *four* times (during the take-off run and the 100 ft climb). In addition, *according* to the Brazilian press: after the examination of the DFDR and CVR at the manufacturer (Allied Signal?) in USA, the investigation board think that the crew was unaware of the thrust reverser deployment. Each time the reverser was deployed, due to a failure in the hydraulic shut off valve of the reverser or due to a failure in the relay that commands that valve (who knows?), the throtle came back to idle and the crew push it back to full power - the crew thought it was a problem with the autotrotle, according to some incidents with the autothrotle that happened before. Any mesage like "reverser not locked" was inhibit during take-off. As I said in a former msg, the crew was had a lot of experience (PIC had 12,000 hs flight, 10,000 of these flying TAM) and also the 1st officer had some thousand hours, but it seems they had not any chance. Nobody knows if it was a faulty maintenance or a defective spare part or even a design error. The investigation board went to Fokker and probably they will reproduce the flight in a F-100 simulator (maybe they already did it). It seems that Fokker is going to recommend specific training for that situation, maybe a recall (if it is the case of faulty spares) and maybe some s/w modificationto warn about thrust reverser deployment during take-off on the EFIS. Well, still they have to find out what caused the deployment of the reverser. Stephan Stephany National Institute for Space Research S. Jose dos Campos - BRAZIL From kls Sun Nov 10 05:29:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 05:29:13 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Growth in air traffic over the next 10 years? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Thanks to Martyn Thomas on Mon Nov 4 10:32:41 1996: > My memory is a forecast of about double, at most. See the CAA Annual Report > or phone their press office. >From a different list, someone else responded:- > I saw Phil Condit's speech to the 1996 World Aviation Congress meeting > last week, and the figures he showed looked more like a DOUBLING, not a > 10-fold increase, by the 2006 time frame. That works out to roughly a 7% > increase per year. And he probably got his data from the same place you did. > Anyway, a 10-fold increase in traffic by 2006 would require a constant > year-to-year growth rate of roughly 26%. Not likely, even if the expected > increase in Asian air traffic accelerates. > > But even a doubling of traffic, with no decrease in the accident rate, would > start closing in on nearly one accident (not necessarily hull loss) per week. > Not good for public relations. So it does look like a *doubling* of volume (which *is* born out by the statistics). Any further coments, references, etc., are still welcome. (Thanks, Martyn. I'll contact the CAA.) 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 Sun Nov 10 05:29:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Nov 96 05:29:13 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Growth in air traffic over the next 10 years? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The Boeing Market Forcast (1996 Current Market Outlook) shows 2686 billion revenue passenger miles statute (RPMS) in 2005. This compared to 1576 billion RPMS in 1995 resulting in a 70% increase in 10 years. The number for jet transports in service worldwide is forcast to go from 10,000 in 1995 to 16,300 in 2005 with smaller old transports being replaced with larger ones. Things look like they may be busy in the near future. Of course this forecast doesn't take things like terrible natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions of large scale nor does it account for the arrival of the martians. :) The data that the safety info addresses is history and does not reflect the current direction of growth although one might try to extrapolate to get an idea. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Mon Nov 11 01:50:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:35 From: Bob Falkiner Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: RJF Home Reply-To: falkiner@interlog.com Bob Standaert wrote: > > Several of the comments on inert gases caught my attention, so I thought > I'd offer up some tidbits. Even though the point is moot, there are > some interesting things to think about. You would never do this with liquid nitrogen. You already have a couple of huge compressors on board (engines) with existing bleed air systems. Since aircraft take off with lots of fuel, the vapour space is minimized at takeoff, and combined with depressurization, and low fuel use, the amount of makeup gas needed on board during a typical long haul flight would be very small, and would easily be in the range of the gas diffusion systems, without use of any cryogenic or high pressure storage systems.. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:50:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:36 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article Keith Barr writes: >In article , >Karl Swartz wrote: >>This would explain the complete instrumentation failure, though it >>fails to explain why the pilots did not recognize a problem with the >>airspeed indicator during takeoff and either abort the takeoff or >>immediately return to the airport. (The pilots first reported >>problems and requested a return to Lima about five minuts into the >>flight.) > >A pitot-static system failure in a large aircraft should not be an >occurance that causes an accident. Run it through a simulator some time and get back with us. >You can live without your airspeed indicator by knowing what power settings >and approximate pitch attitudes will give you what you are looking for >(i.e.: set 2800 pounds fuel flow, 5 degrees nose up, flaps 15, and you get >170 knots and level flight--these are for a 737-200 in the low 90,000 pound >range at 7000 feet MSL). That's a fine theory. It'll work for a while. In this case, they were flying at night, no ground contact. Let's assume that the static ports were all stuck over. They'd be able to fly pitch and power for a while. After a certain point, though, they'll reach the apex during a climb, either because of maximum performance or overspeed conditions. Back-of-envelope calculations indicate the airplane would have reached MMo around 10,000', if they were showing 250knots IAS, with a blocked static port. >In a 757 you have a radar altimeter, which should be enough to keep you out >of the water anyway. RA's generally don't work very high (although the one >on the DC-8 I have spent a lot of time on was accurate into the 30,000 foot >range). At ~10,000', therefore, they get to lower the nose. This starts some major uncertainty. After a certain point, the "pitch vs. thrust" theory will fail, and they will lose altitude. Jet aircraft can lose a lot of altitude in a very short period of time. So after fighting this situation (at night, in the dark) for 30 minutes, unable to make any sense of or able to stabilize the situation, they pass under 2500', when the radio altimeter should theoretically kick in. The initial (horrible) reports indicated that they heard the GPWS at least twice. That indicates that they were unable to do what you suggested, and may have been in a long-term PIO. If this static report is true, then the actions of the crew were remarkable-- remarkable because they lasted so long. The Birgenair didn't do nearly as well, with likely much more info available. -- 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 Nov 11 01:50:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:36 From: speedpuppy Subject: Re: Stage 3 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nando.net Public Access Vangal Venkatesh wrote: > > I thought that the airlines are placing large orders now to comply with > the Stage 3 noise requirements by end of 1999. If it looks like Boeing > can't keep up with production of 737s, maybe the FAA should move the > requirements to 2002 or something. not necessarily....one can re engine or hush kit exsisting powerplants to meet the standards...most airlines are placing orders for lowering costs and aircraft that need replacing ( high cycles).. remember 2 crew and 3 flight attendants can work a 90 seat aircraft and upto 150 seat aircraft...thus a 66% gain in seats...with no additional workers ( in the air)... From kls Mon Nov 11 01:50:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:36 From: speedpuppy Subject: Re: F-100 crash in Sao Paulo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nando.net Public Access tassio@watson.ibm.com wrote: > From what I know, power requirements for take-offs consider only an > engine *failure*, which translates to me as thrust = 0, but never this kind > of situation where an engine might actually be contributing with negative > thrust. Am I correct? not exactly.....you would have one engine at full power and one in full reverse....much worse than simply one failed.... the fk 100 is supposed to have a system on board that when it detects reverse thust in the air..will take that engine to idle power.... this same type of incident happen to Eastern Airlines some time ago and the First Officer shut the engine down which was the only way to save the aircraft.......( even after idle thrust..)...but it too happened at Vr From kls Mon Nov 11 01:50:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:36 From: Graham Barber Subject: Re: ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM With specific reference to the British Midland B737. I was actually on duty as an ATCA on the night this aircraft went down. I was in the approach room and took the initial telephone call from the area centre advising the problem. The only thing that has ever stuck in my mind is that whilst the aircraft was descending through the overhead we all expected him to keep his decent as steep as possible. The crew elected, however, to go quite a way north then turn slowly east, then south and go through the centreline to do a 180degree turn back onto a northerly heading to close final from the south. All the approach room staff kept saying was "Why don't they get this thing down on the ground quickly?". On at least 6 occasions the aircraft was offered a tight turn to make final quicker and on every occasion this offer was rejected. The other fact is that only a month before I had flown on the flight deck with that same captain as part of a familiarization programme. It only took 5 minutes to realize just what a competent, switched on guy he was. Obviously he is a skipper and needs to be switched on, but I swear that if he had lost both engines at FL260 overhead and KNOWN about it he would have put that aircraft down on RW 27 at EGNX without so much as a ripple in the passengers coffee. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:50:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:36 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Malcolm Weir wrote: >McElravy wrote: >> The article made no mention of any other orders, but I suspect that USAir >> may yet order some Boeings -- 777s maybe. > >Why? USAir's current route system certainly doesn't justify 777's, and >even assuming USAir wins big in its ploy of getting London routes, most >of the arguments in favor of these routes focus on the smaller markets, >like Charlotte, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (smaller than, say, New >York!). > >For these markets, the 767 and the 757 make a lot of sense, perhaps the >757-300 would be a better candidate for the sort of airline that USAir >is? > >Or perhaps the A330 or A340, offering some cockpit commonality with the >A320 class? Haven't you just said the B777 is too big for USAir? Then, the same argument should apply to the A330 or A340. Unless you are talking about A330-200 and/or A340-200. However, I don't think Airbus has sold many A340-200s for quite a while. The A330-200 is really competing with the B767-300ER. Since USAir already has some B767s, the -300ER makes more sense than the A330-200. Nevertheless, many aircraft acquisitions by airlines don't make common sense. > >The 777 does seem to be just a bit of a status symbol to some people >(for the airline that has everything)! > Nonsense! The B777-200 is an ideal replacement for the L-1011 and the DC-10. The B777-200IGW can do anything that the MD-11 (and the A340) can do. The B777-300 is an excellent replacement for the B747-100/200. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:50:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:36 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Detecting consumer electronics possible ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , amtran01@aol.com says... s. > >Although if a computer or game is causing problems with avionics the a/c >is at fault. The a/c should be able to operate in a very "loud" radio >enviorment(i.e.Thunderstorm, Solar activity). Loose or frayed connections >to the radios are most often the culprit. > Incorrect. Nowhere in the FARs is there anything that requires an aircraft to be impervious to all external sources. Recently, HIRF (High Intensity Raidiated Fields) testing is being required on all new and modified aircraft. However, there is no way to protect against everything. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:50:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:36 From: agtabby@aol.com Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10) I agree that adding more hardware/software to a plane every time there is a particular accident will add weight, complexity, and might not make the plane any safer. I just wonder about gps, however. I own a gps that costs 300 bucks, and can display location, speed, and altitude with reasonalbe accuracy. Is every airliner equiped with a gps now, and if so why not? This device could also prevent kal-007 type accidents. I am no expert, let me know what the deal is . . . Andrew McNeil From kls Mon Nov 11 01:50:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:37 From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: Detecting consumer electronics possible ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. S> >Would it be theoretically possible to have such equipment on the plane > >that would detect the use of passenger electronics which interfere with > >the navigation equipment ? (Eg: pilot are told that there are emissions > >which interfere with navigation equipment thus rendering it unreliable). > > Very doubtfull. There is just to many types of "toys" and to many differences > between aircraft. Just because something may be a problem in one aircraft does > not mean it will cause problems in another. That is why avionics/equipment > installed on aircraft are approved on a model by model basis. The only way I have been able to detect the inappropriate usage of an electronic device, in this case a cell phone about six years ago, was to look at the CDI when we were tracking a VOR radial to a station. The CDI began deviating wildly and the AP tried to follow it before it knocked itself off line. We asked an FA to check the cabin (B-737 non EFIS) and sure enough there was a passenger who was using his phone. This occured in straight and level flight near Traverse City MI enroute YYZ to YWG. Had it occured during a coupled approach in Cat II weather I'd be at the very least, pissed off. cheers, Peter From kls Mon Nov 11 01:50:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:37 From: Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington In article , Pete Finlay wrote: >In article , Paul Nixon > writes >>McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an >>earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. But that doesn't >>change the fact that the ground crewman was the one who was responsible >>for making sure the door was properly closed. > >the American Airlines DC-10 crash was nothing to do with the cargo door; >it was the failure of one of the wing engine pylon hinge brackets, which Different DC-10. The one being referred to above didn't crash; the aircraft was lightly loaded and had plenty of altitude when the door popped, even so the pilot had to bring the aircraft down without any tail controls. The THY aircraft was still in climb -- apparently the aircraft was nearly level when it ran out of altitude. >Philosophically speaking (!), both accidents were the results of human >error more than an aircraft fault. The American Airlines one at Chicago >was caused by poor maintenance procedures (they changed the engine using >a fork-lift truck and cracked the bracket in the process), and the >Turkish one was caused by the idiot that was responsible for closing the >door. As others have notied, it wasn't entirely the handler's fault that the doors popped -- it was pretty hard to tell the difference between the door locking correctly and the mechanism folding up inside. What is a common theme in the AA & THY door failures, the AA engine loss and UA232 is the amount of collateral damage suffered by control systems when some other part of the aircraft falls off; in the door episodes the tail controls were disabled; in the AA crash at Ohare, the loss of the engine pylon took out not only the leading edge devices but the systems that would have alerted the pilots to the asymmetric slat configuration as well -- if these had functioned the pilots would almost certainly have been able to take action to save the aircraft. It's as if McDD never sat down and asked, for each door, window, engine, pylon, control surface etc, "what happens if this breaks?" Engines break. Even doors occasionally pop if mishandled -- witness the UAL 747. The UAL 747 came back to HNL minus the cargo door, a chunk of the fuselage, 9 passengers and with two dead engines, but it came back. Other aircraft have survived uncontained turbine failures without even a danger of losing all hydraulic systems -- turbines blowing themselves to bits or even falling off, although not common, is hardly in the "can't happen" category. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:18 From: Neil Krey <76405.3621@compuserve.com> Subject: CRM Web Site Available Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Reply-To: 76405.3621@compuserve.com The Industry CRM Developers Group's World Wide Web site is now available at: http://www.caar.db.erau.edu/crm/ This site includes many valuable resources for the development and conduct of aviation Crew Resource Management and Human Factors training. It is a companion to the CRM-DEVEL Internet Mailing List which began operation just over one month ago. The Web site includes instructions for joining the mailing list and an archive of all mailing list messages. For more information, contact: Neil Krey 76405.3621@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/NeilKrey From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:18 From: "jon (j.) cox" Subject: Re: Air Brakes??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NSS Quality and Finance Reply-To: "jon.cox.0508040 ( Jon J. Cox 2Z81 BNR )" Mark A. C. Wilson wrote: > > I would like some information about the probability of a cellular or any > kind of transmitter being able to mess up the air brake system of a Fokker > 100. I am a High School student taking flying lessons, and heard about the > accident down in Brazil last Thursday, October 31st, where this Aircraft > fell into a residential neighborhood after take off due to a passanger's > cellular phone. The phone (somehow) opened the air brakes and reversed the > troutle of the right engine, slaming the aircraft into a residential > building couple minutes after takeoff. The pilot of the aircraft behind > claims to have seen the right air brake open couple times during takeoff. > If anyone could explain to me how this is possible, I would appreciate. > > I am also a Cadet of USAF - Civil Air Patrol (reason why I'm taking flying > lessons). > > Thanks for your time; > > Mark A. C. Wilson > wilsonm@usa.net whoa!! i'm not trying to send a flame here, but working in the wireless telecommunications industry, and being a commercial pilot, let's be realistic.... this is certainly an interesting slant, but i haven't seen anything to substantiate this from more conventional sources. remember there is always butt-loads (aviator's technical term refering to quantity) of speculation early on in any (especially) aviation accident. it is always more prudent to wait and see AT LEAST what the CVR/FDR transcripts show. (a big advantage in a 3 year old air frame) i really think we will see something a little less controversial...probably a little more conventional. here is my SPECULATION: A most unfortunate pilot error, ie. accidental control accuation during taxi/takeoff phase. Improper or lack or proper maintenance, inspections, etc. (often found in central/south american airlines, sometimes so serious that the carrier is not allowed to fly into US airspace.) electrical systems flaw/malfunction (causing non-human initiation of the spoilers/ or thrust reverser bucket END OF SPECULATION it IS sometimes entertaining to speculate as to the cause, but not every aviation accident is due to conspiracy or a twilight zone phenomenon.... Jon Cox Commercial Pilot, ASEL/MEL/IAP -- The views and opinions stated are my own, and do not reflect those of my employer. The views of my employer may not necessarily reflect those of mine. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:18 From: "Damon Marcus Lewis" Subject: Re: 747s In The Movies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DML Enterprises Kim Hackett wrote in article ... > Airliners magazine recently had a photo of a Concorde painted up in a > new Pepsi paint scheme for a 10 day promotional tour in Europe. The > article said that the paint job cost $300,000. I think the price varies a lot on the size of the plane. I know it costs about $70,000 to paint a 737. Also, the Concorde is a much smaller plane that the 747, so it would probably cost much more than the Concorde to paint the 747. -- Damon Lewis "I don't actually fly planes, but riding them is kind of cool." From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:18 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics brown@asiaonline.net wrote: > > > Jim Messina wrote: > > >>Easy one. They are taxiing out with only one engine running to save fuel. > > Come-on all you aircraft designers. For my pennyworth: A capt > answered my comments on the bent 737 problem with the explanation that > the nosewheels are not mounted on the aircraft fuselage centre-line. > This explanation should be easy to check! Rule number one: Don't believe everything a Captain tells you about his/her aircraft. Many of them don't know nearly as much as they think they do. Can *anyone* tell me a good reason why Boeing would have put the nose gear of the 737 off center? I didn't think so... Jennings From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: mattburk Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz relayed > Delta Express expects to save money in other ways, such as taxiing > into gates using only the left engine, so that baggage can be > unloaded from the right side and ensure a quick turnaround for the > next takeoff. I think you will find almost all operators shutting down the right engine in the vicinity of the gate. On the single engine taxi issue of the 737, USAir does a single engine taxi on the 200 series just fine. But they stopped single engine taxies on the 300 and 400 for two reasons. One was increased FOD. The other was a tendency of the engine whose start was delayed to overtemp on takeoff. The CFM engine is much more sensitive to the needs of a warm up period than the 200 engine is. But the right engine is often shut down when approaching the gate if no more power applications are anticipated. Matt From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > Delta Express expects to save money in other ways, such as taxiing > into gates using only the left engine, so that baggage can be > unloaded from the right side and ensure a quick turnaround for the > next takeoff. > >Not quite the same circumstances as taxiing out to the runway for >departure (with the added weight of fuel for the flight), but clearly >Delta doesn't think it's stupid to taxi on one engine. Like you say, shutting down one engine while rolling into the gate is a little different that taxiing around on one engine. So much extra thrust is required to get the thing moving, that much of the advantage is lost at heavy weights. Also depends how long the line is for takeoff. In article , nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) writes: >However, on >some aircraft, there is a longeron at exactly the bottom of the >fuselage, so the fin antennas are typically mounted slightly offset >from the bottom, between the bottom and adjacent longerons. This >might lead one to believe the plane is taxiing crooked. I guarantee you it's not the antennas that lead me to believe the 737 is taxiing crooked. The fact that the nosewheel tracks the centerline while the main gear are not equidistant to the centerline sure makes a convincing argument, though! Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ----------------------------- Props are for boats! ----------------------------- From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: Paul Kearney Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line I asked the chief instructor of the airline i work for today about crokked 737s and he says yes it does happen and he has attributed this to some sort of tolerated offset on the main landing gear. I suggested cross-wind and single-engine-taxi but the opinion stayed wiht the main landing gear. Regards ALL From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: Bob Crownfield Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Queens College Reply-To: Bob_Crownfield@QC.edu Ted Pleavin wrote: > Did anyone ask if the taxi way was flat or concave. Maybe it's the gear > trying to keep up to the nose gear. I do know the 747 is hard to keep on > the center line of a concave taxi way because it wants to roll off either > side. If anyone would design a concave runway, that would hold water during rain, I would not want to land there. I assume they are all flat or slightly convex. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Long term planning for STAGE III Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Lets take a theoretical airline with about 40 737-200s and not much money to work with. In the year 2000, such aircraft will not longer be able to fly, right ? So the airline, which relies heavily on such planes will either need to buy new ones or hushkit them, right ? Considering purchasing/delivery delays for new planes, and considering frequency that planes are sent to the shop, how long before the deadline would such an airline have to make a decision on its fleet ? In other words, should the airline decide to hush kit its 737s, how long would the process take ? Is this done during a D check, or would a 737 be take off-line for a few days to be hushkitted without other checks ? From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: dlane15090@aol.com Subject: Diesel Aero Engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10) I was interested in the recent messages regarding the diesel engined Fokker aircraft. Can anyone please supply me with a list of any other aircraft with this type of engine. I am particularly interested in the DC3. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: jdouglas@vaxxine.com (James M. Douglas) Subject: GPS Question? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Vaxxine's Internet Access Can anyone tell me the frequency band the GPS system uses? Thanks, James Douglas jdouglas@vaxxine.com From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: Dave English Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tidy Reply-To: english@skygod.com >> The ATR42/72 did pass all the FAA icing >> test requirements during certification. The ATR 'passed' the French DGAC certification tests and was given a US airworthiness certificate based on a bilateral agreement. -- Dave. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Jean-Francois Bosc wrote: > > rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: > > > Jean-Francois Bosc writes: > > >Once again probably some totally independant and unbiased point of view. If I > > >had to choose in which type of aircraft not to set foot, I would probably be > > >more worried by the amazing number of Boeing crashes during the last few years, > > >which were generally caused by technical failures, or remain unexplained ... > > > > Perhaps that's just a tad more honest than blaming every crash on "pilot > > error" and washing hands of any further need for investigation. > > > > Lastly: I would suggest that any Euronationalist apologist who is tempted > > to respond to this or any other post on the book just read the thing. It's > > a remarkable piece of work, not least in the fact that it got > > published. > > May I connect the fact that 99% of the contributors on this group are American > with the other fact that comments appearing in "Airbus vs Boeing" threads are > often single-sided, and sometimes obviously biased ? And largely correct, I might add. > My (limited) "technical" knowledge comes down to this : airlines still buy > Airbus and ATR, which seems to indicate that they are run by idiots. Certainly. Most airplane crashes have to do with weather or bad maintenance. Some, such as a few of the early A320 crashes, could also be blamed on bad design. > Quite > surprisingly however, these airlines usually don't collapse shortly after > making such a bad move. Even more surprisingly, as far as I know the number of > Airbus or ATR crashes is not particularly high. The number of Airbus A320 crashes is quite high, actually, especially considering that the plane is relatively new. -- Joseph Edward Nemec nemecj@mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/ From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:19 From: mattburk Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I've been reading all the Airbus v. Boeing stuff for a while, and although I've never even been on an Airbus I have friends that fly the A320 and love it. The thing that makes me curious is why the French postal service uses Boeing 737-300s move cargo and not the A320 or now the A319. Any thoughts from either side? Matt From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:20 From: tewalt@i1.net (Chris Tewalt) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc I'll just throw this out with the hopes that someone might have an answer...Is it possible that the vertical inflating boots on the ATR's are not as efficient at shedding ice as the horizontal inflating type? Chris From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:20 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) writes: >So you can make all the claims you want about it just being a patch, but >that still won't make your comments or the authors claims any more factual. >If you don't bother (and from your posts it appears you did not even think >about trying) to substantiate his or your so-called claims before citing it >as fact, the only thing that you accomplish is to tarnish your own >credibility. Hey--I don't claim to know ANYTHING about the issue. I do claim to express some puzzlement at the knee-jerk reactions of people who (a) haven't read the book, and (b) for some bizarre reason seek to discourage others from doing so. It's a strange position to take. If you know of a more authoritative source that the public can use to learn about the issue, feel free to cite it. When/if you have any salient points to offer, feel free. If your objective, on the other hand, is to simply state that all of a sudden we're supposed to get the warm fuzzies that all is fine and dandy--I think not. Specific actions often count less, in large organizations, than the processes which produce the mistakes to begin with. This does not denigrate the intent of individuals participating in those actions, but is a reality which has to be considered. It is such processes, btw, that Fredericks also concerns himself with. -- 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 Nov 11 01:52:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:20 From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 28 Oct 1996, Pablo Wangermann wrote: > (I think this was part of ATR's argument - the pilots knowingly flew the > plane in severe icing conditions - a definite no no.) Bunk. The pilots did indeed know that they were in icing conditions, but it is clear that they had no way of knowing - or assessing - its true severity. They were using standard Company and ATR SOP (standard operating procedures). Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:20 From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 28 Oct 1996, McElravy wrote: > ... the DC-10 is (as Karl calls them) a death crate .... And all along I thought it was the Death *Cruiser* . Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:20 From: Jean-Francois Bosc Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > Jean-Francois Bosc wrote: > >May I connect the fact that 99% of the contributors on this group are American > >with the other fact that comments appearing in "Airbus vs Boeing" threads are > >often single-sided, and sometimes obviously biased ? > > (Does the DGAC do such shoddy work in its accident investigations?) Very handsome ! Btw, I'm not DGAC. > For the first nine months of this year, 2014 articles were posted to > sci.aeronautics.airliners by 720 individuals. 1536 articles or 76.3% > came from 531 (73.8%) e-mail addresses with domains which could be > associated with the US. [...] > > In France, does 76 equal 99? OK, I probably haven't been very clear. So, here's what I meant : there's a large majority of US contributors on this group, which may partly explain the fact that most comments are anti-Airbus. But, believe me or not, I _knew_ that the correct figure was not 99. More precisely, I knew that it was probably not 99, and even that 99 was not the most likely one (I can develop a bit more). > A less hysterical view would be that they are run by financial folks > who go for the cheapest deal. That's what kept the DC-10 in the game. > The stockholders came out ahead, and perhaps most passengers came out > slightly ahead by paying lower fares. Those who weren't killed, that > is. Do you mean that it was known in advance that the DC-10 was going to be a dangerous aircraft ? Then the conclusion is that certification wasn't done properly. I don't expect finance people of any company to take such hypotheses into account. Anyway, I have no problem at all getting in a DC-10 (which is much less dangerous than getting in my car). Actually my understanding is that it initially had some problems that were fixed, after what it became a pretty decent plane. > >However, if some "USnationalist" can provide me with clear significant stats > >showing that I should better not set foot on a European aircraft ... > > While you're apparently too irrational for it to have sunk in, nobody > has ever suggested anything like this. May I cite the original post : "Frederick's analysis of Aerospatiale's continued denials of problems with the ATR's performance in icing conditions is chilling enough to persuade me never to set foot in an ATR. If the same company is connected with the Airbus, I would be very cautious about travelling again in one of those, too." There's a very interesting (and fair, IMHO) post by Mr Wangermann on the ATR topic. I have to admit that he has a US address. > Your own whining about nationalism is baseless, much as you might like > to think otherwise to provide your vacuous arguments with a crutch. > Now, since this is supposed to be a technical group, will you please > stop whining and try contributing some substantive arguments based on > at least an attempt at facts? I've been extra tolerant of some of the > pro-Airbus ranting, in hopes that some more technically savvy Airbus > supporters might not feel threatened, but that hasn't happened and I'm > growing wearing of rubbish. So are many readers of the newsgroup. I'm terribly sorry but my english is too poor to follow you into unpleasant language. I just don't consider that this group is fair on average, in that there has been some biased comments which have not been refuted. I have been accused of nationalism for expressing this opinion, maybe in a rough wording I'll admit. I can rephrase it into : this newsgroup is made by a set of human beings, 76% (let's be precise on important things) of which are Americans (sorry : USians). Understand : I expect that a 76% European group would be equally unfair. Anyway, the main content of my message was that Airbus finds customers to buy its planes, and that those planes perform decently regarding safety. I don't think that you addressed these points in your answer. I've asked a few times for statistical data to be provided in support of Airbus criticism, and I find quite amusing that you return this argument now. Now, if you want facts, there has been many posts pretending that Airbus is going the wrong way by removing too much control from pilots, but I'm still waiting for the stats. Until they show up this is at best philosophy. To me the fact is that Airbus planes don't fall down particularly often. And I've read comments from pilots who liked them. Another recurrent comment is that Airbus planes are cheap because of government funding. This may have been true in the past, but not any more (since several years). The fact is that the only governments helps allowed by the European Commission, and provided by governments, are loans, which _are_ being returned after a while. JF From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:20 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU says... >The ATR42/72 did pass all the FAA icing test requirements during >certification. All planes out there have to pass these tests. However, >the icing conditions that caused the crash (supercooled droplets) is pretty >rare and is not part of the certification requirement. Now, it is clear >given the accident and a couple of other incidents that the ATRs need >better de-icing to cope with these conditions. However, I've seen no reports >on whether any other aircraft have had control problems that were due to >similar icing conditions. I believe the FAA or NTSB mused about testing >other types of aircraft under similar conditions, but with the icing tanker >now decomissioned I'd say the chances of that happening in the near future >are minimal. I wouldn't trust _any_ prop in those icing conditions. (I >think this was part of ATR's argument - the pilots knowingly flew the plane >in severe icing conditions - a definite no no.) The FAA did indeed research most or all other aircraft to see which may have a problem and they did indeed test them before the tanker was decommissioned. Also, the loss of the tanker does not mean it will never be done again, besides the tanker is only a small part of what is necessary for the testing. >As for the 737s, I bet if a plane that a) wasn't a Boeing b) didn't have >over 2000 units in service had 2 unexplained crashes the FAA would have >grounded it by now. And what do you base these conclusions, obviously nothing other than shear speculation. >It took another near accident (the Eastwind incident) >to kick the authorities into gear and actually talk about making changes to >the rudder system. Do your have any idea how long the FAA and ntsb has been trying ot figure out what the cause was. What do you propose they change? If you don't know that a specific item is the problem area what good does redesigning parts of the aircraft do when there is no idea if the problem is fixed. If you car were broken down would you simply begin resigning it and replacing parts or would you find out what the problem is so that you can be sure that it is taken care of. >Conclusion: yup, ATR should have just got on with improving the icing >system, but some of their beefs about the US authorities are partially >justified. Oh, and you shouldn't feel safe in any turboprop flying through >supercooled droplets. What do you mean should have, THEY DID. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:20 From: egotrip@lesol1.dseg.ti.com (Mike Neus) Subject: Re: Detecting consumer electronics possible ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Instruments In article , Jean-Francois Mezei said... > >There has been much talk lately about the impact of adult toys (laptops, >GPS, walkmans etc) on on-board navigation equipment. > >Obviously, airlines introducing fancy on board entertainment and >electronics have a way to ensure that these do not interfere with >the navigation equipment. Is it fair to assume that equipment is >available to detect/measure the emi emissions from a "thing" ? Yes. All electronic equipment is designed to meet certain emissions requirements. Some requirements are more stringent than others. Avionics emissions for example have tighter requirements than most consumer electronics, and hence the problems when bringing them on airplanes. Of course, the aircraft certified device is also much costlier than consumer devices. The only way to verify a "thing" will meet its emissions requirement is to test it as you have suggested. >Would it be theoretically possible to have such equipment on the plane >that would detect the use of passenger electronics which interfere with >the navigation equipment ? (Eg: pilot are told that there are emissions >which interfere with navigation equipment thus rendering it unreliable). Not currently. Emmisions are tested by placing them in a large room. The room must not only be RF proof, but must also not reflect any emissions that might be radiated inside. Depeding on what the test is, one or more antennas are placed in the room. Allot of speciallized equipment is required for the test. Not only would the typical airplane not have the space, but the cost of a labratory and continual re-certification would probably tripple the cost of you're ticket. >Seems to me that stopping the electronic toy tidal wave is pretty >impossible. I am just wondering if airliners could be retrofitted to >detect if an unfriendly toy is being used. Not practically. From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:20 From: dlawler@aol.com Subject: Re: Detecting consumer electronics possible ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10) > Is it fair to assume that equipment is available to detect/measure > the emi emissions from a "thing" ? Yes, there is. Standard on all test flight at Boeing was to EMI-test any piece of equipment that was going to be "on" during a flight. Equipment was then certified as acceptable and a sticker placed on it. If it didn't have a sticker, it didn't go on the flight (or it didn't get turned on while in flight). > Would it be theoretically possible to have such equipment on the plane > that would detect the use of passenger electronics which interfere with > the navigation equipment ? This is a far more difficult question. I am unsure as to what equipment was used to certify the equipment on Boeing Test Flights and have no idea as to its expense, ease of use, etc. On the other hand, I was involved in EMI testing that we did on various aircraft and remember that testing to have been very arduous and time-consuming. One of my least favorite tests. - David Lawler formerly Boeing Experimental Flight Test From kls Mon Nov 11 01:52:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Nov 96 01:52:21 From: trussell@magmacom.com (Tim Russell) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Altopia Corp. - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net On 05 Nov 96 04:13:59 , Michael Carley wrote: >wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes: > >>A decade ago, I worked on a project with the {ground} fuel systems >>guru for UAL. (I'll not name him, but he was noted for bow ties...) > >>He insisted that we'd have one more complete generation of >>oil-burners, then we'd start to see hydrogen powered aircraft. That >>would solve the NOx problem, at least..... > >And indeed, last week Aviation Leak reported that Dornier >were ready to test a hydrogen powered 328. H2 powered jets are not new it was tested in the 50'a. I read a quote that H2 was a "terrific fuel for turbines" I expect that hydrogen will replace fossel fuels in the future Let's see, you get it from water, when it burns the byproduct is water do you see a benifit. From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:52 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: mid-air collision near Delhi Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California A Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747 departing New Delhi, India, collided with a Kazakstan Airlines (Kazair) aircraft in mid-air at 640p local time on Tuesday. The Saudi plane, flight 763 bound for Dharhan and Jeddah, was carrying 289 passengers and 23 crew. Kazair flight 1907, from Chimkent, Kazahkstan, was carrying 27 passengers and 10 crew people plus cargo. Reports vary on whether the Kazair plane was a Tupolev-154 or an Ilyushin-76. Kazair has both types, but their Tu-154s are passen- ger configs (perhaps the cargo was just the usual belly cargo) while their Il-76s are freighters. UPI reported it was a charter "being used as a cargo plane to carry so-called shuttle traders, who fly back and forth from Central Asia to India with large quantities of goods to sell at a profit back home," with Kazair officials attributed as the source. Perhaps they'd use a freighter in those ciscumstances. Initial reports said that all 349 people were feared dead. One report says at least four survivors were found, though three subsequently died. The collision took place as the Saudi plane had been cleared to climb to 14,000 ft, while the Kazair plane was cleared to descend to 15,000 ft. It's unclear which one of the flights, or both, deviated from its clearance, though allegations have already been made that its due to the Kazair plane having metric instruments. (Never mind that they don't even know if the Kazair plane was in the wrong place yet -- facts can wait. ) Reports vary on the exact location of the crash. CNN and UPI say near Charkha Dadri, a town of 50,000 about 40-60 miles west of Delhi, while the BBC apparently is saying it was near Tiken, a village 40 miles southwest of Delhi. I assume they're close -- I don't have a sufficiently detailedmap of India. It seems likely that this will be the worst mid-air collision to date -- I believe the previous worst was the September 25, 1978 collison of a PSA 727 and a Cessna over San Diego, in which 182 died, including 11 on the ground. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:52 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk By the time this reaches the newsgroup this will be old news. But my question: shouldn't the Saudia 747 have had TCAS, sinc ethey do frequent US airspace? I forget...do -both- a/c need TCAS to make it effective? -- Niels From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:52 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >But my question: shouldn't the Saudia 747 have had TCAS, >sinc ethey do frequent US airspace? They may only use select aircraft for service to the US, so only some of their aircraft would need TCAS and perhaps other special equipment for US operations. (I have no idea if they actually do this or not.) Even if TCAS-equipped, it's possible they weren't using it if they weren't required to do so, perhaps if it was inoperative. >I forget...do -both- a/c need TCAS to make it effective? I *think* the other aircraft need only have a (mode C?) transponder. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:53 From: stephan@lac.inpe.br (Stephan Stephany LAC-CC) Subject: More on the F-100 crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM According to the Brazilian press: After analysis of the CVR and DFDR it seems that (I say "it seems" because it's not official yet); - the crash was indeed due to the deployment of the right engine reverser during take-off and initial climb (it opened and closed four times); - the crew wasn't trained to such an emergency, but this would not make any difference because any alarm related to "thrust reversers not locked" was inhibited during take-off and initial climb; - as someone mentioned in another msg, the F-100 has a protection for in flight deployment of any reverser: the related engine throttle is cut to idle; - the crew though that something was wrong with the autothrottle (previous incidents with autothrottle malfunctioning), disconnected the autothrottle and pushed the right throttle full forward (obviously, the left one was always full forward); - the opening of the right reverser was due to an electrical failure: the relay that commands this opening was energized (they are trying to find out why). TAM did a modification recommended by Fokker concerning a specific wire of the reverser actuator relay, in order to avoid battery discharge when aircraft is grounded; How to explain what happened? The right reverser was deployed due to improper power-on of the relay, that triggered the right-engine cut-to-idle protection, the crew reacted by applying right-engine full throttle and somehow this cycle was re-started (right reverser opening and closing and so on, right engine from idle to full power and so on). No way of controlling the airplane... The correct procedure would be shut down the right engine *if* the crew knew the problem was the reverser deployment. TAM will provide emergency training for accidental reverser deployment, and remove the inhibition of related alarms during take-off and initial climb. What caused the problem is not known yet. It could be faulty design, defective spare part, improper maintenance, etc. The board in charge of the investigations concerning that crash and Fokker itself are working on that. It seems unlike that any EMI (due to celullar phones, etc.) may have caused the crash (the board is not even considering that). Stephan Stephany stephan@lac.inpe.br National Institute for Space Research S. Jose dos Campos - BRAZIL From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:53 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: F-100 crash in Sao Paulo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk In article stephan@lac.inpe.br "Stephan Stephany" writes: > >Surely, as a twin engine aircraft it should have the capability to >take-off using only one engine, but with the other shut down and >not "braking" the aircraft. Reportedly, the plane took off and >the right thrust reverser opened and closed *four* times (during >the take-off run and the 100 ft climb). Can anyone recall the Pacific Western 737 crash at Cranbrook BC where a landing was aborted (snowplow still on runway), take-off/ go-around initiated, but a thrust revereser would not redeploy? Why didn't it redeploy? Just wondering is same thing happened re: TAM. I have always wondered why F100s I have seen at LHR seem to taxi around with one reverser depolyed. Does this save on brake wear? Is it standard procedure? Could this have been a factor with the TAM? -- Niels From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:53 From: Jean-Francois Bosc Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM mattburk writes: > I've been reading all the Airbus v. Boeing stuff for a while, and > although I've never even been on an Airbus I have friends that fly the > A320 and love it. The thing that makes me curious is why the French > postal service uses Boeing 737-300s move cargo and not the A320 or now > the A319. No cargo door on Airbus (at least on those they could be interested in, and unless things changed recently). And the 320 series is too recent, I think they only bought used planes. JF From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:54 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >No cargo door on Airbus (at least on those they could be interested in, >and unless things changed recently). But they could be converted -- all the L'Aeropostale 737-300s were converted from passenger models. I don't think Boeing even sells a freight or QC version of the 737-300. (The -200s in the fleet were built was freighters.) >And the 320 series is too recent, I think they only bought used planes. They're all used, but they've acquired all the 737-300s since 1991, and the newest ones were built in 1992. The A320 entered service in 1988. I suspect commonality with their existing 737-200s was a major factor in their decision to choose the 737-300. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:54 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk In article mattburk@sprynet.com "mattburk" writes: >I've been reading all the Airbus v. Boeing stuff for a while, and >although I've never even been on an Airbus I have friends that fly the >A320 and love it. The thing that makes me curious is why the French >postal service uses Boeing 737-300s move cargo and not the A320 or now >the A319. >Any thoughts from either side? >From neither `side' B^) but: Are you referring to `L Aeropostale'? This is a private French airline (737 operator) and is not connected to the French Govt. postal service. They may have some contracts for night post service, but they are primarily a passenger line AFAIK. -- Niels From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:54 From: Rich Webb <95rgw2@eng.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Concorde Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England I have been reading this news group for some time now and I have decided to ask my first question. What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? Thanks From kls Tue Nov 12 13:58:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 12 Nov 96 13:58:54 From: Christopher Davis Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Blues Brothers Band Rhythm & Blues Revue PW> == Pablo Wangermann PW> As for the 737s, I bet if a plane that a) wasn't a Boeing b) didn't PW> have over 2000 units in service had 2 unexplained crashes the FAA PW> would have grounded it by now. The Lockheed (not Boeing!) Electra (which never got anywhere NEAR 2000 units) was not grounded despite two unexplained crashes (though it was speed-limited until the cause was found and fixed). Robert Serling's book on the Electra is quite good (and was reprinted as part of the Bantam Air & Space series, so it should be findable). -- Christopher Davis "I conclude that the CDA is unconstitutional and that the First Amendment denies Congress the power to regulate protected speech on the Internet." -- Judge Stewart Dalzell in _ACLU v. Reno_ From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:20 From: rathinam@netins.net (Sethu R Rathinam) Subject: Mid-air collision near New Delhi, India Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA, USA Early news reports (Nov 12, 1996) indicate a Saudi Arabian 747 and a Kazakh airline Ilyushin IL-76 collided in mid-air about 80km southwest of Indian's New Delhi airport. There are more than 300 casualities. The Kazakh airliner was reported to be a Tupolev TU-154 in earlier reports. There were 312 people including 23 crew on the Saudi Arabian flight SV-763, which had just taken off from New Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport bound for Dahran and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, was reportedly cleared to climb to 14,000 feet. The Kazah airliner (registration no. 76435) is reported as a "cargo" flight with 28 passengers and a crew of 10 and was cleared to descent to 15,000 feet and was bound for the same airport in New Delhi. At least one "black box" recorder has been located. There have been several eye-witness accounts, including one by the crew of a USAF C-141 bound for the same New Delhi airport. Early speculation (too early and very speculative) on the cause is that the Kazakh pilots deviated from the assigned altitude. -- Sethu R.Rathinam rathinam@netins.net rathinam@MaBell.com From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:20 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Mid-air collision near New Delhi, India References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Kazakh airline Ilyushin IL-76 ... reported to be a Tupolev TU-154 in >earlier reports ... registration no. 76435 Aha! UN-76435 is one of their four Ilyushin 76TDs. Where did you get the registration from? Any more detail on the Saudi aircraft? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:21 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk writes: >By the time this reaches the newsgroup this will be old news. >But my question: shouldn't the Saudia 747 have had TCAS, >sinc ethey do frequent US airspace? > >I forget...do -both- a/c need TCAS to make it effective? In order to work, all airplanes in the airspace need to have Mode C-capable transponders. These transmit altitude information along with their data packet. Mode C transponders are cheap, and can be found in Cessna 152s on up. TCAS is just a transponder-pinger. It is not anything like tactical radar. This is one reason that airspace representing the highest risk in the United States requires that all airplanes participating have Mode C transponder capability. If that capability fails, the airplane would, in effect, be invisible to airplanes with a TCAS capability. TCAS, unfortunately, is a LOT more expensive and complex, compared to transponders, so its use is restricted to operators flying complex, expensive equipment. That just means the big planes have the option of detecting and avoiding smaller airplanes, and not vice-versa. It is also important to keep in mind that TCAS is just a warning system. ATC is still predicated on "see and avoid" when possible, and adherence to standard procedures and flight plans by both pilots and ATC and the competence of ATC when not. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:21 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... >They may only use select aircraft for service to the US, so only some >of their aircraft would need TCAS and perhaps other special equipment >for US operations. (I have no idea if they actually do this or not.) >Even if TCAS-equipped, it's possible they weren't using it if they >weren't required to do so, perhaps if it was inoperative. The only thing to add is that even if the second aircraft were a TU154, since it is a cargo aircraft (as reported by the news media)it would not be required to have TCAS in the U.S. >I *think* the other aircraft need only have a (mode C?) transponder. Correct. While TCAS can display Mode A targets it does not no their altitude and assumes co-altitude. For full functionality the second aircraft should have at least a working Mode C or Mode S. From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:21 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar Karl Swartz wrote: > >I forget...do -both- a/c need TCAS to make it effective? > > I *think* the other aircraft need only have a (mode C?) transponder. With a MODE C Xpndr on the other aircraft only a Traffic Advisory (TA) would be issued. To get a Resolution Advisory (RA) the other aircraft would have to have a MODE S Xpndr. So in this case, if the Saudia AC had an operating TCAS and the TU 154 had an operating Mode C Xpndr, the Saudia AC should have received a TA from TCAS. From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:21 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , 95rgw2@eng.cam.ac.uk says... > >I have been reading this news group for some time now and I have decided >to ask my first question. > >What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain >this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? I was recently talking to some of my JAA counterparts and was told that the afterburners are used to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to 1.7 (I think that is what they said the range was) but that they were not required for cruise. From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:21 From: Bard.Venas@termo.unit.no Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology Reply-To: Bard.Venas@termo.unit.no In , Patrick.Petit@cern.ch (Patrick PETIT) writes: >In article , rickydik@ix.netcom.com >says... >>There may be more A320's built than Comets, but the A320 may still have >>a worse accident record, which at one time was the worst since the >>beginning of the jet age. > >Statistics from Boeing: > >Accidents rate (per million of flights between 1958 and 1993) > >Comet 9.63 >B707 6.14 >DC8 5.49 >Trident 5.00 >DC10 2.67 >A320 2.50 >B747 -1/2/300 1.71 >DC9 1.18 >B737 -1/200 1.15 >A300 .98 >B727 .87 >A310 .64 > It would have been interesting to know the actual number of flights the statistics are based on also. I have some basic engineering knowledge of statistics and this made me try to figure out how significant the differences cited above really are. Say the probability of an accident is one in a million (P=1e-6). This leads to a probability of s number of accidents during N flights to be described by a "binominal distribution" Prob{accidents=s) = P^s * exp(-P*N) * N^s / s! as long as N is much larger than s :-). s! is the faculty of s (=1*2*...*s). The Boeing home page says that the 737 has some 60million flights, the distribution above then leeds it to be 90% probable that the number of accidents should have been between 50 and 70 if the accident rate in fact is one to a million - leading to an accident rate between 0.83 and 1.16. Thus a rather uncertain number even after 60 million flights! I don't know how many flights e.g. the A320 had in 1993, but to show the point say a relatively new aircraft has 800.000 flights and the same probability of accident (P=1e-6) it would then be 36% likelihood of 0 accidents 0 per million 36% likelihood of 1 accidents 1.25 per million 14% likelihood of 2 accidents 2.5 per million 14% likelihood of more than 2 accidents ..... This isn't ment to be a pro or con anything, only to say that when discussing 'very low probability events' such as airliner accidents one may need some more caution than simply dividing the number who falls down by the number that went up ... Regards Bard Venas Department of Mechanics, Thermo and Fluid Dynamics Norwegian University of Science and Technology N-7034 Trondheim-NTNU, Norway From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:21 From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA In article , agtabby@aol.com writes: |> I agree that adding more hardware/software to a plane every time |> there is a particular accident will add weight, complexity, and might |> not make the plane any safer. |> |> I just wonder about gps, however. |> |> I own a gps that costs 300 bucks, and can display location, speed, and |> altitude with reasonalbe accuracy. Is every airliner equiped with a gps |> now, and if so why not? This device could also prevent kal-007 type |> accidents. |> |> I am no expert, let me know what the deal is . . . First, several small Russian airlines I've flown were using a small general aviation GPS receiver as a primary means of IFR navigation, supplemented by ground control radar. I was surprised to see a Magellan handheld receiver sitting on the glareshield (one was a Yak-40 jet and the other an An-24 turboprop). The pilots were quite proud of the units, and said that they were far more reliable than the NDB system used previously, and between GPS and ground-mapping radar, were used exclusively in place of the old systems. Anyhow, your $300 GPS may work fine for VFR cross-country flight, but when you are using the receiver for primary IFR navigation with 100 passengers in back, the rules change a bit. When going into the air transport category, the rules change even more, driving up the price to where 300 bucks is a memory. Things that you might not have considered that are important to an Air Transport-category craft: o The unit must have a reliable means of detecting failure or degradation of the satellite constellation members it is looking at. Some of the algorithmic means for doing this are not easy, and the reliability of some of these means has been covered in Av Week (no date references--sorry). Assumption of the satellites being inviolate can't be made and short-term problems can't be assumed to be caught immediately by the satellite's BITE or the ground stations and placed in the almanac o The unit must have extensive self-monitoring o Sensors will be redundant both for safety and dispatch reliability o Sensors must be designed to support other nav systems than a simple display, including INS and flight management systems o The unit must have some means of detecting interference or jamming based upon position reasonableness, resulting in flags to the pilot in case of error o Integration of new electronics into an existing airframe is a tedious effort, and can be very costly. It isn't as simple as carrying in a handheld unit. There are compatibility issues, power issues, flight deck effects and safety, etc., before regulatory agencies will allow a new system onto the flight deck Remember that an airplane is primarily a collection of spare parts flying in close formation, held together by paperwork! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 295-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:21 From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA In article , agtabby@aol.com writes: |> I agree that adding more hardware/software to a plane every time |> there is a particular accident will add weight, complexity, and might |> not make the plane any safer. |> |> I just wonder about gps, however. |> |> I own a gps that costs 300 bucks, and can display location, speed, and |> altitude with reasonalbe accuracy. Is every airliner equiped with a gps |> now, and if so why not? This device could also prevent kal-007 type |> accidents. One additional thought: I don't think GPS would have prevented the KAL shootdown. The FMS had been misprogrammed by the pilot as to the route. The nav sensors had been deemed to be operating correctly. The pilots inherently trusted where the FMS was taking them... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 295-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:21 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , agtabby@aol.com says... >I own a gps that costs 300 bucks, and can display location, speed, and >altitude with reasonalbe accuracy. Is every airliner equiped with a gps >now, and if so why not? The thing to consider is the certification cost of installing GPS in a transport category aircraft, its hundreds of times more expensive. You small $300 dollar unit may give you "reasonable" accuracy, but since it is not certified it cannot be used as a navigation source. From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:22 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:50 AM 11/11/96, you wrote: >I agree that adding more hardware/software to a plane every time >there is a particular accident will add weight, complexity, and might >not make the plane any safer. > >I just wonder about gps, however. > >I own a gps that costs 300 bucks, and can display location, speed, and >altitude with reasonalbe accuracy. Is every airliner equiped with a gps >now, and if so why not? This device could also prevent kal-007 type >accidents. =====No Andrew, they are not. The primary reason is cost. While the one you have is a good one...for recreation...you have to have a gold plated one to use it in the airplane due to all the certification requirements. There are GPS units available and they are being slowly retrofitted to the older airplanes. In the eyes of the airline money changers, the GPS must pay it's way and since we have gotten along without it for so long why should we spend so much to get it now? This can be a good question if you really don't need it. Current Nav Systems work well but have limitations that GPS can lift. I don't think that the use of GPS will eliminate some of the recent accidents...quite unrelated I would say. It will certainly help out in the future and should be standard equipment on all new planes. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:22 From: Bill Chivers Subject: Kegworth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chivers Consultants In article , Graham Barber writes >With specific reference to the British Midland B737. > >I was actually on duty as an ATCA on the night this aircraft went down. I >was in the approach room and took the initial telephone call from the area >centre advising the problem. > >The only thing that has ever stuck in my mind is that whilst the aircraft >was descending through the overhead we all expected him to keep his decent >as steep as possible. The crew elected, however, to go quite a way north >then turn slowly east, then south and go through the centreline to do a >180degree turn back onto a northerly heading to close final from the south. > >All the approach room staff kept saying was "Why don't they get this thing >down on the ground quickly?". On at least 6 occasions the aircraft was >offered a tight turn to make final quicker and on every occasion this offer >was rejected. This accident is one of the classics which seems to get studied in most CRM courses. Crews are now trained to review their actions to ensure that they are appropriate. One of the areas about the conduct of the crew on this flight was that they did not properly review their actions. What is a little unfortunate about this is that the one time the Captain actually tried to review the state of play, he was interupted by yet another ATC transmission! I don't want to get into the 'pilot knocking ATC' mentality but you would have thought that it was fairly obvious, after the second offering of a tighter turn was rejected, that the captain didn't want one. Really, in the event of an engine failure, there is no great rush to get the aircraft on the ground (by that I mean a few minutes doesn't matter, I'm not suggesting continuing on to the destination!). Its more critical to get the aircraft sorted out, that any appropriate drills are complete, actions reviewed, and finally that the aircraft is stabilised early on the approach. You don't want to do a single engined go around with a heavy aircraft, even if Perf 'A' say's its O.K! Personally, I'm quite happy with a late / tight turn on when the aeroplane is working, but I when do a pre-departure emergency brief I always include a statement like "If we do have an emergency we'll come back in here and we'll ask for an 8 mile final". >The other fact is that only a month before I had flown on the flight deck >with that same captain as part of a familiarization programme. It only took >5 minutes to realize just what a competent, switched on guy he was. >Obviously he is a skipper and needs to be switched on, but I swear that if >he had lost both engines at FL260 overhead and KNOWN about it he would have >put that aircraft down on RW 27 at EGNX without so much as a ripple in the >passengers coffee. The real shame about this accident is that if the engine had just held together a few seconds more they might have just cleared the M1 cutting, or if it had come apart a few seconds earlier they might have had long enough to successfully relight the good engine. Also, an awareness that disconnecting the Autothrottle would affect fuel flow to *both* engines might have helped the crew avoid misdiagnosing the failure. Personally, I think there is a case for better technical training for professional pilots, perhaps concentrating a bit more on general engineering principals & control systems. Bill Chivers 'my other signature file has something funny at the bottom of it' From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:22 From: jaded@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Pete Finlay wrote: >In article , Paul Nixon > writes >>McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an >>earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. But that doesn't >>change the fact that the ground crewman was the one who was responsible >>for making sure the door was properly closed. >the American Airlines DC-10 crash was nothing to do with the cargo door; >it was the failure of one of the wing engine pylon hinge brackets, which >caused the engine to detatch, which ripped out the hydralic and >pneumatic lines on that side. This, in turn, caused the L/E slats on >that side to be blown back by the forward air pressure, and that flipped >the aircraft onto it's back. BTW, I am assuming you are talking about >the American Airlines DC-10 that went in at Chicago. I may be wrong but I seem to recall reading of an American DC-10 that lost a cargo door departing San Francisco?... the pilot was able to turn around and land the plane by varying the thrust from the 3 engines (the hydraulics to the control surfaces being severed when the floor bucked)... I think... From kls Wed Nov 13 02:41:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Nov 96 02:41:22 From: petercoe@best.com (Peter Coe) Subject: Re: 747s In The Movies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BEST Internet Communications "Damon Marcus Lewis" writes: >Kim Hackett wrote in article >... >> Airliners magazine recently had a photo of a Concorde painted up in a >> new Pepsi paint scheme for a 10 day promotional tour in Europe. The >> article said that the paint job cost $300,000. >I think the price varies a lot on the size of the plane. I know it costs >about $70,000 to paint a 737. Also, the Concorde is a much smaller plane >that the 747, so it would probably cost much more than the Concorde to >paint the 747. Just to correct a slight lack of information about Concorde. It may only take 100 passengers (and in not that much comfort either), but it is not a small aircraft. In size, it is 203 ft long, and 408,000 lbs maximum take off weight. For comparison, a 767-300 is about 180ft long, and 350,000lb take-off weight (747-200 - 820,000lbs, 231ft). Plus, I believe the Pepsi plane, had its wings painted, so the surface area painted, was probably more than the typical paint job on a 747. From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:35 From: Oldo Bezunk Subject: Kathmandu Airport Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BAMBOO GROVE SOFTWARE Does anybody (pref.from the aero-tronic busn.) knows of any plans to eqp.KTM with approach radar? The pilots who fly there (the majors: LH, SQ, TG), what do they have to say about the app-safety? Second, where is definite record for the PIA and THAI crashed there few years back? Thanks in advance, Oldo -- The multilingual consultants: d*dk*cz*fr*n*se*sk*ru We know WINDOWS in many local languages... -- From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:35 From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France In article (Dans l'article) , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote (=E9crivait)=A0: > >I forget...do -both- a/c need TCAS to make it effective? > > I *think* the other aircraft need only have a (mode C?) transponder. > TCAS-I (for small airplanes): The TCAS-I can show the position of the other aircraft. If the other aircraft have a mode C transponder (instead of a mode A) the TCAS-I also show altitude. I don't think that the TCAS equiped airplanes absolutely need a working transponder (except for altitude comparison), but they usualy have one. For the TCAS-II (for airliners): The other airplane need a mode S transponder. So the TCAS-II can generate traffic warnings (TA) and resolution requests (RA) to avoid collision in the vertical plan only. If both airplanes have a mode S transponder, the manoeuvering of the two airplanes are coordinates. For the TCAS-III (in project) : The TCAS can generate manoeuvering in both vertical and horizontal plan. Hope this helps. Francis Jambon -- Equipe Ingenierie des Interfaces Homme-Machine Tel : +33 4 76 63 59 70 Human-Computer Interfaces Engineering Group Fax : +33 4 76 44 66 75 E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr - WWW: http://clips.imag.fr/iihm/francis.jambon/ ___________ CLIPS-IMAG, B203, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France ___________ From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:36 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , gerhard@onramp.net says... >With a MODE C Xpndr on the other aircraft only a Traffic Advisory (TA) >would be issued. To get a Resolution Advisory (RA) the other aircraft >would have to have a MODE S Xpndr. Not True. RAs are generated against both Mode C and Mode S targets. The biggest difference between the two as far as TCAS is concerned is that if both aircraft have TCAS, they both also have Mode S and therefore TCAS-to-TCAS coordination between the two aircraft will occur which provides complimentary manuevers to each aircraft. For example, while one gets a climb RA the other will get a descend RA. From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:36 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , rdd@netcom.com says... >It is also important to keep in mind that TCAS is just a warning system. >ATC is still predicated on "see and avoid" when possible, and adherence >to standard procedures and flight plans by both pilots and ATC and the >competence of ATC when not. As far as TCAS is concerned, a pilot is expected to comply with an RA unless he has better information (i.e. visual on the intruder aircraft). He is also allowed to deviate from his assigned altitude to the extent necessary to comply with the RA ( ussually only several hundred feet if performed properly). From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:36 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk >From the UK spotters list I now understand that the Saudia 747 was a -100 series. I suspect that this makes it less likely that it was TCAS equipped since the trans-Atlantic services seem to be operated by -300s. -------------- >From spotters list: Involved aircraft: Saudi Arabian: Aircraft: Boeing 747-168B Registration: HZ-AIH Constr-no.: 22748/555 Manufactured: 1982 Engines: 4 Rolls Royce RB211-524C2 Kazakstan Airlines (Kazair): Aircraft: Ilyushin IL-76TD (not a Tupolev TU-154 as firstly reported) Registration: UN-76435 Constr-no.: 1023413428 Manufactured: 1992 Engines: 4 SO D-30KP Former Reg: CCCP-76435 ------------- -- Niels From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:36 From: shahid siddiqi Subject: ATC Transcripts of Mid Air Collision in India Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: as&m I've enclosed the ATC transcripts of radio conversations between the airplanes and Delhi control. I pose the following questions. Typical initial news report inaccuracies and lack of knowledge suggested 3 possible reasons for the crash: 1 - Kazak Airliner crew didn't understand ATC instructions due to English language fluency. The transcripts negate this 2 - Indian ATC notorious for poor English - Transcript negates this. (this is stereotyping bull because most Indians in professional jobs have English seaking skilla equivalent to or better than many Europeans 3 - Kazak pilot made a meter to feet conversion error - this is possible and forms the basis of my question: I's sure both airplanes had Mode C capability so why wouldn't ATC have know that the Kazak plane was off altitude. The transcript shows that radar determined that they were 14 miles apart. Lets assume 300 knots speed for each meaning 10 miles per minute of travel. This would allow 1.4 minutes before collision enough time for at least 10 radar scan paints if not more. So why didn't the Mode C altitude get picked up?????? Stung by critical reports about possible failure of the Air Traffic Control (ATC) and obsolete equipment at the Delhi airport, the Ministry of Civil Aviation today made public the last conversation between the ATC and the pilots of the ill-fated aircraft which collided mid-air near here killing all 351 people, including crew members, on board. The commanders of both the planes could hear the instructions given out by the ATC to each other. The 15-second conversation shows that the ATC had given instructions to the commander of the Kazhak plane to descend to an altitude of 15,000 feet and to the Saudi Boeing pilot to ascend to 14,000 feet. Both the pilots appear to have followed the instructions and confirmed it too. Then what went wrong? According to experts, either the Kazhak pilot made a mistake in calibrating the meter gauge into feet and was at a lower altitude, even though he confirmed that he was at 15,000 feet or did not follow instructions. The other theory is that one of the aircraft had a defective altimeter. The ATC has only the pilot's word for the altitude he was flying at. At the site of the accident, the cockpit and the windscreen of the Kazhak plane were recovered almost intact. Even the bodies of the people on board this aircraft were found to be in identifiable condition. In the case of the Jeddah-bound Saudi Boeing aircraft, which was carrying a huge quantity of fuel, the bodies were charred beyond recognition and so was the aircraft. Sources said the collision did not happen head-on. It was more likely that one of the aircraft brushed against the other, hitting a side, which led to an explosion and the worst ever mid air disaster in aviation history. The Director-General Civil Aviation, Mr. H. S. Khola, today denied that India had deviated from international norms in allowing a single corridor for landing as well as take-off of flights. He said both the planes were allowed to fly at a distance of 1000 feet vertically under the guidelines of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The following is the transcript of the last minute conversation between the ATC and the pilots of both the aircraft. KZA-1907: Good evening, KZA-1907 passing through 230 for 180, 74 miles from DPN (Delhi Palam). RADAR (ATC): Descend 150 report reaching. KZA-1907: One five zero. SAUDIA 763: Approaching 100. RADAR: Cleared to 140. SAUDIA: Approaching level 140 for higher. RADAR: Maintaining level 140, standby for higher. RADAR: KZA-1907 report distance from DPN KZA-1907: Reached 150, 46 miles DPN radial 270 RADAR: Maintain 150 Identifed traffic 12 o'clock reciprocal Saudia Boeing 747, 14 miles. Report in sight. KZA-1907: Kazak-1907 Report how many miles?. RADAR: 14 miles now. Roger 1907. RADAR: Traffic is 13 miles, level 14,000. KZA-1907: 1907 From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:37 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ATC Transcripts of Mid Air Collision in India References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I's sure both airplanes had Mode C capability so why wouldn't ATC have >know that the Kazak plane was off altitude. They had just installed the equipment needed to interrogate Mode C and present the information to the controllers, but it had not been put in service yet. >killing all 351 people The count is back down to 349. Kazair seems to be having a hard time figuring out just how many people were aboard their plane. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:37 From: rjw@atc.dra.hmg.gb (Richard Weatherill) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DRA Malvern, England "David G. Davidson" wrote: >With a MODE C Xpndr on the other aircraft only a Traffic Advisory (TA) >would be issued. To get a Resolution Advisory (RA) the other aircraft >would have to have a MODE S Xpndr. >So in this case, if the Saudia AC had an operating TCAS and the TU 154 >had an operating Mode C Xpndr, the Saudia AC should have received a TA >from TCAS. This is incorrect. A Traffic Alert can be issued even if the intruder is squawking Mode A only. A Resolution Advisory depends on a Mode C squawk (and on the situation becoming sufficiently critical). Mode S opens up the possibility of co-ordinated RAs between the two aircraft - if both are so equipped. Richard Weatherill From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:37 From: michael keenan Subject: Re: mid-air collision near Delhi References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Manitoba On 12 Nov 1996, Karl Swartz wrote:
> It seems likely that this will be the worst mid-air collision to > date -- I believe the previous worst was the September 25, 1978 > collison of a PSA 727 and a Cessna over San Diego, in which 182 > died, including 11 on the ground. I thought only 145 or so died in that one, including 7 on the ground. That would mean that the worst previous midair was the one near Zagreb in 1976, between a BEA Trident and an Inex-Adria DC-9, killing 176. Mike From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:37 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: mid-air collision near Delhi References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> It seems likely that this will be the worst mid-air collision to >> date -- I believe the previous worst was the September 25, 1978 >> collison of a PSA 727 and a Cessna over San Diego, in which 182 >> died, including 11 on the ground. >I thought only 145 or so died in that one, including 7 on the ground. That >would mean that the worst previous midair was the one near Zagreb in 1976, >between a BEA Trident and an Inex-Adria DC-9, killing 176. Er, 182 was the PSA flight number! Let's try that again. 150 is the toll according to The PSA History Page, located at http://futures.wharton.upenn.edu/~basic95/kevins_html/psa.html. That count includes 137 on the PSA 727, 2 on the Cessna, and 11 on the ground. 144 was the count according to an article in the San Jose Mercury News on Wednesday. Either way, the crash you mention would be the worst mid-air. The Mercury News article also lists three other mid-air collisions involving airliners within the United States: Jun 30, 1956 - United DC-7 and TWA Constellation over the Grand Canyon; 128 killed. Dec 16, 1960 - United DC-8 and TWA Super Constellation over Staten Island; 134 killed. Aug 31, 1986 - AeroMexico DC-9 and a Piper Archer over Los Angeles; 82 killed. If the 349 count holds, the Delhi mid-air will be the third worst aviation accident in terms of fatalities. The previous top three were Mar 27, 1977 - KLM 747 and Pan Am 747 collision on runway at Tenerife; 582 killed. Aug 12, 1985 - JAL 747 crashed into Mt. Ogura after failure of aft pressure bulkhead and substantial collateral damage to the tail; 520 killed. Mar 3, 1974 - THY DC-10 crashed in Ermonville Forest, near Paris, after rear cargo door opened during flight; 346 killed. Despite being the second worst crash on record, there were a few (three?) survivors of the JAL crash. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:37 From: John Harvie Subject: 757-300 design reaches firm configuration Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >From a press release, a few facts and figures on the upcoming 757-300: Length: 178 feet, 7 inches (23 feet, 4 inches longer than the 757-200, by adding 160 inches of length in front of the wing and 120 inches behind it). Capacity/range: passenger capacity increases 20% over the -200, and cargo capacity nearly 50%, with a range of ~4,000 mi. Seat-mile costs expected to be 10% lower than that of the -200 (lowest in class). Mods: Wings, landing gear and other key components will be strengthened; new brakes, wheels, tires. New features: nose gear "spray deflector" to help keep muck out of the engines and a retractable tail skid added to the exterior; interior gets vacuum lavatories and all-new decor similar to the 777's (and shared with next-generation 737). Flight deck remains unchanged. First delivery scheduled for January, 1999. John Harvie, Firefly Network, Inc., visit: http://www.firefly.com 17 Sellers Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, 617.234.5479, Fax 234.5414 Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. :) From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:38 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757-300 design reaches firm configuration References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Mods: Wings, landing gear and other key components will be strengthened; >new brakes, wheels, tires. I wonder if there's been any discussion of using these components to create a much longer range 757-200. I've heard mention of at least one route that's very appealing to a current 757 operator, but which exceed the 757's range by a substantial margin (and which is too thin for larger aircraft). -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:38 From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France In article (Dans l'article) , Rich Webb <95rgw2@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote (=E9crivait)=A0: > What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain > this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? Mach 2.02 and the afterburners are used only for takeoff and initial climb. See the unofficial (but very complete) Concorde page for more informations: http://www.utbm.fr/les.personnes/david.trebosc/e_index.htm Francis Jambon -- Equipe Ingenierie des Interfaces Homme-Machine Tel : +33 4 76 63 59 70 Human-Computer Interfaces Engineering Group Fax : +33 4 76 44 66 75 E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr - WWW: http://clips.imag.fr/iihm/francis.jambon/ ___________ CLIPS-IMAG, B203, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France ___________ From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:38 From: Andy Braithwaite Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company Rich Webb <95rgw2@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >I have been reading this news group for some time now and I have decided >to ask my first question. > >What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain >this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? I may be wrong, and will surely be corrected if I am, but I believe that Concorde's top speed is around Mach 2.2. It is actually limited by the temperature of the nose boom. Concorde needs full afterburner to transition into Supersonic flight but can maintian it without afterburners. If it needed afterburner to maintain Supersonic flight then it proabably couldn't carry sufficient fuel to get further than Scotland !! It does however need all four engines to maintain Supersonic speed, loss of an engine causes an immediate deceleration. If you want a good reference on Concorde then there is a book called 'Flying Concorde' by Brian Calvert. He was one of the initial service pilots who introduced Concorde to commercial operations following it's flight test program. Hope this helps. -- Andrew Braithwaite Email: abraithw@ford.com (Work) Powertrain Control Systems Engineering gf10@dial.pipex.com (Home) Ford Motor Company Tel: +44 (0)1268 404115 "The opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily those of my employer" From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:38 From: petercoe@best.com (Peter Coe) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BEST Internet Communications Rich Webb <95rgw2@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes: >What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain >this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? Concorde's cruising speed is 1,336mph. It does this without afterburners. >From experience, the plane starts the take-off run without reheat, but then lights up shortly into the roll. Within about 30 seconds of take-off, the afterburners are killed. I presume this is for no other reason than noise abatement. When the plane has reached significant altitude, and is ready for supersonic cruise, the afterburners are lit up again, and to accelerate through Mach 1, and upto near cruising speed. The afterburners are switched off short of cruising speed, and normal engine thrust is used for the last bit of acceleration. The total time on afterburner is quite short, a minute and a half on take-off, and maybe 10 minutes to break the sound barrier. Concorde is the only plane that cruises at beyond Mach 2 without reheat. Yet another 30 year old invention that hasn't been bettered. On a supplemental thread, I vaguely recall that at the time of its entry into service, Concorde's engines were claimed to be the most effecient engine ever built - I presume in terms of thrust per pound of fuel. The plane isn't effecient overall, because it operates in such an ineffecient environment. From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:39 From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Adaptive Information Systems -- A Hitachi Company Reply-To: malc@deltanet.com Rich Webb wrote: > > I have been reading this news group for some time now and I have decided > to ask my first question. > > What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain > this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? Concorde cruises at Mach 2.0 (1400 mph or thereabouts), and does it at 50,000ft and up. Afterburners, or "reheat" in Brit-speak, is used for take-off and to accelerate from subsonic cruise (mach 0.80 or so) to mach 1.7. They are not used during cruise or during the initial climb to 30,000 ft or so. The fastest JFK/LHR flight time is around 3:07 minutes (I think). JFK/LHR is a better route for the plane than LHR/JFK, largely because it can take off, climb directly to around 30,000 feet, and go supersonic somewhere off Nantucket. Arriving in the UK, it drops to subsonic speeds and descends to landing over the inhabited landmass (where supersonic operations are not permitted). By contrast, leaving London the plane has to plod along at mach 0.80 until it reaches the Bristol Channel, at which point it can start its acceleration and ascent to cruise speed and altitude. You can feel the afterburners cut in, in pairs. > Thanks Malc. From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:39 From: Niels Stchedroff Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SCIS B.V. s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) wrote: >In article , 95rgw2@eng.cam.ac.uk >says... >> >>I have been reading this news group for some time now and I have decided >>to ask my first question. >> >>What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain >>this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? > >I was recently talking to some of my JAA counterparts and was told that >the afterburners are used to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to 1.7 (I think >that is what they said the range was) but that they were not required for >cruise. Conccorde cruises at Mach 2.02 (or thereabouts). It only uses the afterburners for takeoff and transonic acceleration. In other words, it supercruises. If the afterburners were used continuously, the plane could in theory reach speeds above Mach 2.5. However, airframe heating would cause structural damage above Mach 2.2 (approx.). From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:39 From: "tom (t.) lismer" Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell Northern Research Scott Odle wrote: > > In article , 95rgw2@eng.cam.ac.uk > says... > >What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain > >this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? > I was recently talking to some of my JAA counterparts and was told that > the afterburners are used to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to 1.7 (I think > that is what they said the range was) but that they were not required for > cruise. This is my understanding. Also, the engines used are turbo-jets, as opposed to turbo-fans, which have a higher exhaust velocity. The TU-144 had turbofans and needed afterburners. Also, just about every fighter I know of has turbofan engines, and will hence need afterburners for supersonic flight. From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:39 From: bentson@grieg.bentson.aa.net (Randolph Bentson) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Alternate Access Incorporated In article , Reid Fairburn wrote: >... There are GPS units available and they are being slowly >retrofitted to the older airplanes. ... Current Nav Systems >work well but have limitations that GPS can lift. ... It will >certainly help out in the future and should be standard equipment >on all new planes. For those who wish details, there's a publication titled "FAA's Plan for Transition to GPS-Based Navigation and Landing Guidance" dated Jul 1996 (no catalog number or other ordering information). It outlines how the FAA intends to extend the GPS system to yield accuracy and reliability sufficient to their needs. Among other things, it reports "The plan represents a balance, or compromise, between the aircraft operators' desire to get maximum return on investment in avionics for the exisiting ground-based systems, and the FAA's desire to decomission the ground equipment...the plan has been designed around a 10-year transition period..." Randolph Bentson bentson@grieg.seaslug.org From kls Fri Nov 15 12:25:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 96 12:25:39 From: David Loveall Subject: DC-10 cargo door Woes (was Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR) References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: dloveall@erols.com jaded@earthlink.net wrote: > > Pete Finlay wrote: > > >In article , Paul Nixon > > writes > > >>McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an > >>earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. But that doesn't > >>change the fact that the ground crewman was the one who was responsible > >>for making sure the door was properly closed. > > >the American Airlines DC-10 crash was nothing to do with the cargo door; > >it was the failure of one of the wing engine pylon hinge brackets, which > >caused the engine to detatch, which ripped out the hydralic and > >pneumatic lines on that side. This, in turn, caused the L/E slats on > >that side to be blown back by the forward air pressure, and that flipped > >the aircraft onto it's back. BTW, I am assuming you are talking about > >the American Airlines DC-10 that went in at Chicago. > > I may be wrong but I seem to recall reading of an American DC-10 that > lost a cargo door departing San Francisco?... the pilot was able to > turn around and land the plane by varying the thrust from the 3 > engines (the hydraulics to the control surfaces being severed when the > floor bucked)... > > I think... The AA DC-10 reference is not to the 1979 Chicago AA DC-10 crash, but instad to what Stanley Stewart calls in his book "Emergency! Crisis in the Cockpit" (ISBN 0-8306-3499-1) the "Windsor Incident". 12 June 1972: AA DC-10 flight 96 lost an aft cargo door at 11,750 ft near Windsor Ontario on a Detroit - Buffalo leg of a LA - LaGuardia flight, resulting in major flight control damage. (Loss of tail engine thrust, rudder jammed full left, and loss of three out of four elevator panels.) Bryce McCormick, R. Paige Whitney, and Clayton Burke landed the plane essentially using asymetric thrust inputs from the wing engines. Extremely providentially, Captain McCormick had practiced in the DC-10 simulator control of the DC-10 using asymetric thrust. Also providential was the light weight loading of the floor in at its collapse point (a coach bar - remember those?) leaving partial elevator control. (Control cables were routed and damaged under the areas of collapsed flooring.) Almost two years later, a Turkish Airlines DC-10 also lost an aft cargo door, this time over the French countryside, however on this occasion the collapsing floor (and cabling underneath) was loaded with passengers instead of a bar. Complete loss of the tail engine and tail flight controls led to a loss of control and loss of the airplane and all 346 people aboard. A number of books have explored why the THY DC-10 disaster occurred, even after the AA DC-10 near-disaster, so there is no need to re-hash them here. I'm curious, though: When the flight control conditions that AA 96 had faced are replicated in simulation, how often can the plane be successfully landed? Or after the THY flight control damage for that matter? Dave Loveall From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:01 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , Francis.Jambon@imag.fr says... >TCAS-I (for small airplanes): The TCAS-I can show the position of the >other aircraft. If the other aircraft have a mode C transponder (instead >of a mode A) the TCAS-I also show altitude. I don't think that the TCAS >equiped airplanes absolutely need a working transponder (except for >altitude comparison), but they usualy have one. TCAS will not operate without a working transponder onboard or without the altitude encoding on. >For the TCAS-II (for airliners): The other airplane need a mode S >transponder. So the TCAS-II can generate traffic warnings (TA) and >resolution requests (RA) to avoid collision in the vertical plan only. If >both airplanes have a mode S transponder, the manoeuvering of the two >airplanes are coordinates. TCAS II does not require both aircraft to have Mode S. The intruder aircraft must only have Mode C. >For the TCAS-III (in project) : The TCAS can generate manoeuvering in both >vertical and horizontal plan. There will be no TCAS III. For whatever reason it will be designated TCAS IV. From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:01 From: ben_jaensch@mail.indcom.gov.au Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Saudi Arabian: >Aircraft: Boeing 747-168B >Registration: HZ-AIH >Constr-no.: 22748/555 >Manufactured: 1982 >Engines: 4 Rolls Royce RB211-524C2 Are you sure 747-100s were built with RB211s ? I thought only JT9Ds were available until the -200. From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:01 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Saudi Arabian: >>Aircraft: Boeing 747-168B >>Registration: HZ-AIH >>Constr-no.: 22748/555 >>Manufactured: 1982 >>Engines: 4 Rolls Royce RB211-524C2 >Are you sure 747-100s were built with RB211s ? >I thought only JT9Ds were available until the -200. Read carefully, paying extra attention to the series -- the accident aircraft was a 747-168B, not a 747-100. Subtle, but significant. The only place I've ever seen this sub-series mentioned other than in passing is in the British publication Airplane. Volume 1 Issue 7 has an article on the 747 and under further variants says "In 1978 Boeing introduced the Model 747-100B as an updated re- placement for the Model 747-100 with strengthened structure and more powerful engines." That sounds like a 747-200B to me, except there's no mention of added fuel tankage. If the Saudi aircraft is typical, MGTOW is less than that of a -200B, too -- 750,000 lbs, versus 775,000 lbs for the -200B at introduction and up to 833,000 lbs for later models. MGTOW for the 747-100 is only 738,000 lbs, though United has some that have been modified to 750,000 lbs. Perhaps if they'd been built this way they would be 747-100Bs. Obviously "more powerful engines" also includes a choice of vendor, such as Rolls-Royce in Saudi's case. Can anyone shed more light on the 747-100B? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:02 From: Juha.Paulavuo@sci.fi Subject: Airliners in near miss over UK Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Scifi Communications International, http://www.sci.fi/, helpdesk@sci.fi, (931)3186277 Reply-To: none.nobody@nowhere.com Two airliners came within 250 yards of each other over southern England and only quick thinking by an air traffic controller prevented a possible collision, officials said Thursday. The near-miss occurred Tuesday November 12 when a Boeing B-737 of the Dutch airline KLM descended too far and came close to a McDonnell Douglas MD-80 of the Scandinavian carrier SAS, the main air traffic controllers' union said. The incident happened just hours after 349 people were killed when a Saudi airliner and a Kazakh cargo plane collided over India. Poor weather conditions meant it was unlikely the two pilots realized their planes were so close. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=517894-855 -- Juha Paulavuo, teacher of computer technology. Homepage: http://www.sci.fi/~kassu1/ Maintainer of : http://www.eurohit.sci.fi Man is still the most extraordinary computer of all. John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), U.S. Democratic politician, president. Speech, 21 May 1963. From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:02 From: "john r." Subject: Re: ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Scott Odle writes >In article , cd@birch119.cray.com >says... > >>In January '89 there was a British Midland 737-400 (Flt BD-92) which crashed >>just short of the runway at East Midlands airport, England. A fan blade had >>failed on one engine. The crew shut down the wrong one and for various reasons >>did not realize it until the engine failed completely late on final. >It would be better to compare only those aircraft that are approved for ETOPS. >A 737 is not approved for ETOPS so its reliability does not play a role in the >question. > >Also, As for shutting down the wrong engine. Do you know the details? Was it >crew error? Was it caused by confusion due to the cockpit design? Without >these and other details any comparison for use in the original question about >ETOPS and reliability are meaningless As I remember the crew had it in their heads that flight deck air came from one pack and one engine only. When they had vibs and smoke in the f/deck they shutdown that engine and it cleared. Unfortunatly they could not see the vib indicators clearly due mainly to the smoke and shut down the wrong engine. The vibs and smoke cleared because they put the running sick engine to idle while they a power off descent on a divertion into their homebase at East Midlands. Only when they put power back on did they realise their error. How can you make such a crass error ? The LCD display unit on that a/c has very small engine vibration indicators, less than an inch dimeter and more importantly there are no latching warnings to say when an engine vibs have gone over a pre set level. With smoke in the flightdeck the displays could not be seen clearly and when the vibs and smoke cleared there was no exceedance warning to say which engine had been in trouble. All a/c I can think of have some form of latch on the vibs system, though this can be reset. I dont know of any follow up action on this one. -- john r. From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:02 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. In article , dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) wrote: >I thought the El-Al 747 crash in Amsterdam was attributed to just such >a scenario. One engine has an uncontained failure which also affected >the adjacent engine, leading to an uncontrollable airplane. > >Can anyone remember if the: > > 1. Pilot knew he had lost both engines on one wing > 2. That the adverse yaw was responsible for the crash I think I know what you're trying to say but that's not what "adverse yaw" means. Adverse yaw is the tendency of a plane to yaw opposite the desired direction of a turn due to added drag from a lowered aileron as compared to the opposite side raised aileron. It is adverse yaw that requires that the rudder also be used in a turn to provide the offsetting yaw. While there is a yawing moment caused by the assymetrical thrust that result when a non-center-line engine fails, I have never heard it referred to as "adverse yaw". -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:02 From: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk (Henry Law) Subject: Re: ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Steve Lacker wrote: >.... The airline industry does NOT have to follow >that path, because not everyone and his dog needs to be an airline pilot. I >think it should insure that pilots obtain a good basic understanding of the >systems on each aircraft type they operate. I know that truly good pilots do >this already, and I'm not talking about a detailed understanding of physics, >aerodynamics, engine design, etc.- just understanding correctly and exactly >which engine drives what accessories, how the hydraulics are interconnected, >what various failures "feel like," etc. My understanding is that they do; I'm an armchair pilot but have a close friend who flies 737s (actually he's not at all close now 'cos he flies for Dragonair in HK) and I recall his telling me that the conversion course from -200's to -300's took weeks, principally because they had to learn how all the different bits of equipment in the new aeroplane worked and interrelated. Some professional in the group will tell us the proper answer, I'm sure. Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:02 From: Andrea Tylczak Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada Excuse me for interrupting, but I think you're experiencing technical difficulties. >>>McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an >>>earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. McDonnell didn't know or care. The DC-10 was designed and certified by Douglas Aircraft; hence the name DC-10 rather than MD-10. McDonnell bought Douglas after the DC-10 development (which was a race with Lockheed's L-1011) drained Douglas's financial resources. Lockheed had some troubles with the L-1011 too. As a result, they are no longer in the commercial airliner business. >>[MD] incorporated blow-out panels in the bottom of the cabin sidewall, >>so that if there was ever a major difference in pressure between the >>cabin and the cargo holds again, the panels would open and allow the >>pressure to equalize, which would stop the floor bowing onto the control >>cables. >Are you absolutely certain about this? My understanding has been that >this was discussed, but never actually implemented. Yes, this is correct. Every commercial airplane made by Douglas has blow-out panels or the equivalent to equalize pressure between compartments in case a pressure bulkhead is ruptured. In general, this is not just between the passenger cabin and the cargo compartment, but also between various compartments (lavatory and passenger cabin, cockpit and avionics compartment, etc.) I can't speak from personal experience, but I would expect that Boeing has similar designs. This is required for certification by FAR 25. From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:02 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In article , Andrea Tylczak wrote:>>>>McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an >>>>earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. >McDonnell didn't know or care. The DC-10 was designed and certified by >Douglas Aircraft; hence the name DC-10 rather than MD-10. McDonnell >bought Douglas after the DC-10 development (which was a race with >Lockheed's L-1011) drained Douglas's financial resources. Nice guess, but wrong. The acquisition of Douglas Aircraft by The McDonnell Corporation was announced on January 13, 1967. The first order, from American for 25 aircraft, was placed until over a year later, on February 19, 1968. First flight was three and a half years after the merger, on August 29, 1970, and the FAA issued a type certificate to McDonnell Douglas on July 29, 1971. The only work done by Douglas before McDonnell came along was early design studies. Frank Kolk of American Airlines sent specifications to Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed in April 1966, which led to both the DC-10 and L-1011. (The A300 ended up being much closer to Kolk's original specs.) The work Douglas did in the nine months between then and the merger surely didn't include anything as detailed as the cargo door design One final note on the effects of the merger on the DC-10, from James W. Mar, Hunsaker Professor of Aerospace Education at MIT and a member of a "blue ribbon" committee assembled by the Dept. of Transportation "to asses the procedures and practices used by the FAA to assure the safety of commercial passenger aircraft" after the 1979 crash of AA 191 in Chicago: "Boeing and Lockheed give the impression of their engineers being dominant. You don't get that impression from Douglas, not since the merger." As for why Douglas was acquired, Douglas was strained financially by the poor sales of the DC-8 compared to Boeing's 707. Offering the DC-8 "Super Sixty" series in three variants instead of one added to production costs, souring what could have been a very financially successful improvement to the basic DC-8. Finally, the success of the DC-9 overtaxed Douglas' ability to produce them fast enough, and the costs of scurrying to catch up tied with late delivery penalties exhausted Douglas. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: Rick Hull Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DigiSys Incorporated >In the Caribbean accident the stand-by Airspeed and altimeter would have >functioned normaly. In the Aeroperu the crew would have still had Radar >altitude in addition to a GS indication provided by the inertial navs. In defense of the pilots, in the Caribbean case, there were conflicting readings, including one that the plane was going too fast. The pilots didn't know which one to react to. In the Peruvian case, the pilot was mislead by a radar report from a ground station, and believed he was safely 10,000 feet high, when actually he was just above the water. From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > In defense of the pilots, in the Caribbean case, there were conflicting >readings, including one that the plane was going too fast. The pilots >didn't know which one to react to. They had three airspeed indicators. The captain's disagreed with the other two. In a situation like this, a "2 out of 3" vote seems pretty obvious. > In the Peruvian case, the pilot was mislead by a radar report from a >ground station, and believed he was safely 10,000 feet high, when >actually he was just above the water. Aviation Week had a good article about this last week. Apparently the pilots eventually figured out what was wrong and were in the process of returning to Lima, depending on the radar altimiter. The captain made the mistake of descending after the ground controller reported an erroneous altitude -- in the heat of the moment, it didn't occur to either of them that the controller's display got the altitude data from the aircraft's transponder. According to the article in AvLeak, the plane skipped off the water, then a wing dipped after an engine lost partial power (probably due to water ingestion). The wingtip caught the water and the aircraft cartwheeled. In contrast to the early reports, it sounds like the AeroPeru pilots did an excellent job of diagnosing the problem then flying the plane with their remaining resources. The Birgenair pilots, with fewer failed instruments, didn't seem to have a clue. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl wrote on Fri Nov 8 18:17:40 1996:- > What's relevant is the protections > built into the A320, which allow pilots to forget about just where the > edges of the envelope are because the plane will prevent them from > moving the stick, er, sidestick, too far, ... If I may nit-pick, the pilot can move the sidestick any which way, but the flight control system overrides the command if the result would exceed the limitations programmed into the software. > ... and the lack of feedback, > such as throttles which no longer are at a certain position (either > having moved there by manual action or auto-throttles) during a given > phase of flight. I have been reading "The Pilot-Airplane Interface White Paper" from Boeing, which sets out their design philosophy. It explicitly states that back-driven controls provide an essential form of feed-back to the pilots. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Peter Mellor wrote: >Karl wrote on Fri Nov 8 18:17:40 1996:- >> What's relevant is the protections >> built into the A320, which allow pilots to forget about just where the >> edges of the envelope are because the plane will prevent them from >> moving the stick, er, sidestick, too far, ... >If I may nit-pick, the pilot can move the sidestick any which way, but >the flight control system overrides the command if the result would >exceed the limitations programmed into the software. Good catch! Yes, the sidesticks can be moved anywhere the pilot wants -- that's the whole point of the debate over feedback or lack thereof. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: bush@lf.hp.com (Joe Bush) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Little Falls Site Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Scott Odle (s_odle@earthlink.net) wrote: : There is another consideration. If we required software/hardware installed on : an aircraft in order to prevent every stupid mistake that can be made (and yes : to me missing the taped ports is stupid) the aircraft would not only to : expensive for any airline to buy, but to heavy to ever get off the ground. The : basic question is where do we stop when it comes to adding requirements to : prevent accidents due to someones dumb mistake. Should we require that the : structure have an even greater factor of safety, make them carry even more : fuel, etc. just because someone might decide to exceed the limitations of the : aircraft or not do a proper pre-flight. You make a good point but I believe he was pointing out that all of the information is already available to the flight computers and all that is needed is some software. I think each accident should yield changes that keep dumb mistakes by fallible humans from killing unsuspecting passengers. Joe From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: siller@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Paul Siller) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Counter Current Reply-To: siller@freenet.calgary.ab.ca "David G. Davidson" wrote: >Praxis - Bjxrn Erling Flxtten wrote: >> However, theory aside, isn't it amazing that modern aircraft with all >> this technology is not equipped with a sensor to check for obstructed >> static and / or dynamic ports? >The 757/767 does display ground speed on the EADI and wind speed and >direction on the EHSI. These numbers come from the IRS. >Seems like this information (along with pitch attitude and vertical >speed) should be enough to keep you out of harms way. Altitude information would be better but both the altitude and vertical speed comes via the staic port. --Unsolicited Commercial Email will be subject to invoice-- Paul Siller siller@freenet.calgary.ab.ca Aviator, graphiste and occasional writer of children's stories http://www.freenet.calgary.ab.ca/~siller/index.html From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: khobar@paloverde.com (Paul Nixon) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: RTD Systems & Networking, Inc. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > >The cargo door handle wasn't bent, part of the internal locking >mechanism was bent. The ground worker never wondered because the >difference in force between locking a properly closed cargo door >and bending the mechanism was almost imperceptible. This was one >of the key complaints about the design -- there was almost no >feedback that the door was not properly closed and locked. This could be. My source is the docum. "Could It Have Been Avoided", produced sometime in the mid-70's. In that, the narrator stated that the ground (mechanic???) forced the handle, bending it into place, but no one would be able to ask him why he did so because he then boarded the plane. This docum. could have been produced between the time of the crash and the final results of the "official" investigation. Comments? Regards, Paul Nixon (posted and mailed) From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: mikem727@aol.com Subject: Re: F-100 crash in Sao Paulo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10) In article , Stephan Stephany writes: > Any mesage like >"reverser not locked" was inhibit during take-off. Why the hell is "reverser not locked" inhibited during takeoff? That's a terrible idea! I can't think of a much more critical emergency on takeoff than a reverser deploying. Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ----------------------------- Props are for boats! ----------------------------- From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: ethan@cs.wisc.edu Subject: Re: mid-air collision near Delhi References: , Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison Reply-To: ebrodsky@pobox.com In article , michael keenan wrote: >> It seems likely that this will be the worst mid-air collision to >> date -- I believe the previous worst was the September 25, 1978 >> collison of a PSA 727 and a Cessna over San Diego, in which 182 >> died, including 11 on the ground. >I thought only 145 or so died in that one, including 7 on the ground. That >would mean that the worst previous midair was the one near Zagreb in 1976, >between a BEA Trident and an Inex-Adria DC-9, killing 176. I don't know about the casualty total, but 182 was the flight number. I wouldn't normally know that, but I just read David Beaty's _The Naked Pilot_ in which this incident was described and I kept getting confused and thinking that 182 referred to a Cessna 182 in the collision, rather than the 727. Ethan Brodsky -- ---- Ethan Brodsky From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:03 From: "Darren Rhodes" Subject: Re: Stage 3 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. AAETS Vangal Venkatesh wrote in article ... > I thought that the airlines are placing large orders now to comply with > the Stage 3 noise requirements by end of 1999. If it looks like Boeing > can't keep up with production of 737s, maybe the FAA should move the > requirements to 2002 or something. The ICAO requirment for the phase out of Stage 2 aircraft is 2002. However, airlines are permitted to have 15 percent of their fleet as Stage 2 by this date provided replacement aircraft or huskits etc.have been ordered to convert the aircraft. -- Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, B.Eng (Hons) Email: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk WWW: http://158.125.1.201/~ttdpr/index.html From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:04 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: FAA Experiments Implicate Oxygen Generators Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa This past Thursday's Wall Street Journal had a front page article about the investigation into the Valujet crash in Florida. According to the article, FAA investigators performed a simple experiment in which they put uncapped oxygen generator cannisters in a box, sealed the box airtight, and triggered one of the cannisters. There was no visible result for several minutes, but eventually a very intense fire started and burned its way out of the box, with no source of ignition except the cannister. They did not achieve ignition with every repetition of the experiment, but often enough to make this the likely scenario for the disaster. Again according to the article, the uncapped cannisters in the aircraft's hold could have been triggered by jolts typical for air cargo. To support this recall the posting here several months ago by the person who put a recording accelerometer in his luggage on an airliner. According to the FAA, the timing of events in the experimental fires suggests that the fire probably started before the plane took off, and that fire detectors in the cargo hold would have alerted the crew to abort the take-off and evacuate. They plan to require retrofit of cargo hold detectors to all airliners, which news was on the national media that same day. Smoke and heat detectors were formerly thought to be unnecessary since it was assumed that a fire in a cargo hold would quickly smother from lack of air. Oxidizing materials of all sorts are also to be banned from air cargo. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Nov 17 20:04:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Nov 96 20:04:04 From: Javier Henderson Subject: Re: mid-air collision near Delhi References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hopelessly disorganized > Jun 30, 1956 - United DC-7 and TWA Constellation over the Grand > Canyon; 128 killed. > > Dec 16, 1960 - United DC-8 and TWA Super Constellation over Staten > Island; 134 killed. Those two accidents are largely responsible for the reorganization of Air Traffic Control and the beginning of what we have now. -javier From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:12 From: John Harvie Subject: Commerical VTOL announced Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Bell Helicopter and Boeing are planning a commerical 9-passenger version of the Osprey military hybrid aircraft. The Bell Boeing 609, as it is tentatively named, will sell for "under $10 million" (U.S.), compared to $39 million for the larger V-22 military version, according to the Wall St. Journal (18-Nov-96). The 609 is expected to fly 500 miles at 275 knots, about twice the speed and 3 times the range of a similarly-sized helicopter, with a target customer base of current helicopter users. The 609 is more expensive than either a 9-passenger helicopter ($5-7 million) or 9-passenger fixed-wing aircraft such as a King Air ($4.5 million), but the flexibility is expected to appeal to corporate customers as well as emergency services such as the Coast Guard. John Harvie, Firefly Network, Inc., visit: http://www.firefly.com 17 Sellers Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, 617.234.5479, Fax 234.5414 Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. :) From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:13 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. McElravy wrote: > This weekend I was looking through the aviation books at Media Play and > came across the book "Desert Airliners" and saw the famed USAir 146s lined > up. WOW!! But Karl's post said they were leased out. I'd not heard that. > Who has them? Don't know, but I was at the Mojave Airport two weeks ago, and only 2 or 3 BAe146s were still there. There are still three 747s and a lot of TriStars left, and an old Hawaiian Airlines TriStar was in pieces out in the boneyard. There is also a Convair 990 right next to the fence. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Nov 18 10:11:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:13 From: Stephan Stephany Subject: Re: F-100 crash in Sao Paulo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INPE mikem727@aol.com wrote: > > In article , Stephan Stephany > writes: > > > Any message like > >"reverser not locked" was inhibit during take-off. > > Why the hell is "reverser not locked" inhibited during takeoff? > That's a terrible idea! I can't think of a much more critical > emergency on takeoff than a reverser deploying. Maybe it was the this-never-happens syndrome. NTSB issued a safety recommendation (report number A-91-48) concerning in-flight deployment of thrust reversers (I can post it if someone wants a copy). According to it, FAA and the Aerospace Industries Association Steering Committee issued the document "Criteria for Assessing Turbojet Fleet Thrust Reverser System Safety". In brief, manufacturers were required to either demonstrate that the aircraft thrust reverser system had the same reliability as critical flight systems (I suppose that means no single point failure) or that the aircraft meet controllability criteira under in-flight deployment of a thrust reverser (the latter was chosen by Fokker and other aft fuselage mounted engines jets). So, I suppose that, at least in the US, that alarm is not inhibited during take-off and initial climb and the crew get training for take-off and in-flight thrust reverser deployment (not only in-flight). Am I correct? Stephan Stephany stephan@lac.inpe.br National Institute for Space Research S. Jose dos Campos - BRAZIL From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:13 From: Ed Hahn Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. "tom (t.) lismer" writes: > This is my understanding. Also, the engines used are turbo-jets, as > opposed to turbo-fans, which have a higher exhaust velocity. The TU-144 > had turbofans and needed afterburners. Also, just about every fighter I > know of has turbofan engines, and will hence need afterburners for > supersonic flight. While the turbojets on the Concorde probably do have a faster exhaust velocity than the turbofans on the TU-144, this fact has nothing to do with whether turbofan engines *require* afterburners for supersonic flight. The reason being: the exhaust velocity can (and is) altered by the exhaust nozzle geometry. There is nothing inherent about the turbofan design which would prohibit supersonic cruise merely because of bypass. Finally as the ultimate proof: The YF22 and YF23 both had turbofans, and could cruise supersonically without afterburners. The F22 will have this capability with turbofans as well. ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:13 From: nak@lucent.com (Neil A Kirby x5304 (usr10)) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio In article , tom (t.) lismer wrote: >Scott Odle wrote: >> I was recently talking to some of my JAA counterparts and was told that >> the afterburners are used to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to 1.7 (I think >> that is what they said the range was) but that they were not required for >> cruise. > >This is my understanding. Also, the engines used are turbo-jets, as >opposed to turbo-fans, which have a higher exhaust velocity. The TU-144 >had turbofans and needed afterburners. Also, just about every fighter I >know of has turbofan engines, and will hence need afterburners for >supersonic flight. The new US F-22 fighter is expected to supercruise. (Fly above mach 1 without afterburner). AFAIR, it is expected to burn fuel in supercruise more slowly than current fighters do below mach 1. F-22 will have turbo fan engines. ---- Neil Kirby DoD #0783 nak@lucent.com Lucent Technologies - Home of Bell Labs Innovations (Formerly AT&T) Bell Labs Columbus OH USA +1 (614) 860-5304 From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:13 From: thumper916@aol.com Subject: Re: Diesel Aero Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In 1928,the German Junkers firm,built a series of compression ignition,(diesel)engines,of two stroke design. They ranged in power between 700 and 100 HP. Altouogh they were light weightand narrow,they consumed fuel(heavy oil) at a much greater rate the gasoline fueled engines,and so were deemed,effective. " The guy with the beard in parts" From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:13 From: Michael Catchpole Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: [not set] Rich Webb wrote: > What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain > this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? Top speed of Concorde is about Mach 2 (1350mph approx). Reheat is not required to maintain this speed. However it is required to get there (also required for a short time on takeoff) There is an excellent video documentary on Concorde. It is 5 hours long!!! It is very detailed and takes you through all the systems, including a return flight London-Heathrow (LHR/EGLL) - New York Kennedy (JFK/KJFK) on the BA001 and BA002. The video is available from Intelligent Television & Video, who's website is http://www.itvv.co.uk/aviation/ >From what I recall from the video, reheat (or afterburners, which ever you prefer) is selected on stand by before take-off and automatically flicks on when the throttles are advanced. Michael. From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 From: "John Johnson" Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Paul Kearney wrote in article ... > > I asked the chief instructor of the airline i work for today about > crokked 737s and he says yes it does happen and he has attributed this to > some sort of tolerated offset on the main landing gear. > > I suggested cross-wind and single-engine-taxi but the opinion stayed wiht > the main landing gear. I'm rather surprised by the posts here that some "expert" hasn't come up with the right answer to the 737 dog-tracking down the taxiways. The 737 has a "castering" main truck system that allows the mini-Boeing to land in a crab without ill effects. The mains simply free caster down the direction of travel regardless of the direction of the longitudinal axis. Of course, this castering is limited in scope to just a few degrees from centerline. One of the reasons for this design is to make Captains like myself look better in crosswind landings ;) Another reason is that the fail-passive autoland system doesn't have three axis capability. The rudder isn't controlled by the autopilot during autoland and therefore can't "decrab" the aircraft like the 757/767 system. There, I got that off my chest...I feel much better now. JJ From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>>............................ one more complete generation of >>>oil-burners, then we'd start to see hydrogen powered aircraft. That >>>would solve the NOx problem, at least..... Actually H2 powered engines still produce NOX as a result of the heat of combustion. >On 05 Nov 96 04:13:59 , Michael Carley wrote > >H2 powered jets are not new it was tested in the 50'a. The first hydrogen powered aircraft was the English Electric (now British Aerospace) Canberra, built under license as the Martin B-57. They loaded one tip tank with hydrogen and the other with helium for pressurisation, flew up to high altitude conventionally then successfully switched over to hydrogen power. Gerald Wilson From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: GPS Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet James M. Douglas (jdouglas@vaxxine.com) wrote: : Can anyone tell me the frequency band the GPS system uses? There are two bands, the civilian part of the emission is around 1500MHz, the precise part is around 1300MHz. K8EF -- Gerry From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 From: Martin Judkins Subject: Re: GPS Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none In article , "James M. Douglas" writes >Can anyone tell me the frequency band the GPS system uses? I haven't got my GPS handbook with me but you could try the newsgroup sci.geo.satellite-nav. -- Martin Judkins From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 From: rathinam@netins.net (Sethu R Rathinam) Subject: Re: GPS Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA, USA James M. Douglas (jdouglas@vaxxine.com) wrote: : Can anyone tell me the frequency band the GPS system uses? The L1 carrier frequency is 1575.42MHz (this is the "civilian use" signal that carries both C/A code and P code information). The bandwidth is 2.046MHz and spread spectrum modulation is used. The L2 carrier is at 1227.60MHz and carries the P code (which is called Y code when encrypted, which it is, a lot of the time). You can find more information if you follow sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup. You can use a web search engine (like http://www.lycos.com) to find web sites a lot more GPS related information. - -- ======================================================================== Sethu R.Rathinam rathinam@netins.net rathinam@MaBell.com ======================================================================== From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Can't use GPS on Alaska Airlines References: <4vkuns$54b@news1.ni.net> <321E425F.70C0@macromedia.com> <321F5320.CC0@mail.wwd.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing On 12 Oct 1996 rmeizlik@carroll.com wrote: > One would hope that famous landmarks (Empire State building, WTC, > Statue of Liberty, etc....) have their locations purposely fudged to avoid > being targeted by terrorists using buzz-bomg/gps combos. Anyone with a map can get the precise coordinates for these landmarks. What's much more likely to happen in urban areas such as New York City is to get multipath errors. The combination of a cheap GPS receiver that can not reject multipath, plus the difficulty of acquiring satellites in the urban canyons, can easily produce big errors. -- Mark -- Read http://www.imap.org for the "best kept secret in email" DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045 ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39" Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 From: w3ho@aol.com (W3HO) Subject: Re: Can't use GPS on Alaska Airlines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: w3ho@aol.com (W3HO) Pacemakers have minimal or no radiations in the various avionics bands. Doug in Annapolis From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:52 AM 11/11/96, you wrote: >Ted Pleavin wrote: >> Did anyone ask if the taxi way was flat or concave. Maybe it's the gear >> trying to keep up to the nose gear. I do know the 747 is hard to keep on >> the center line of a concave taxi way because it wants to roll off either >> side. > >If anyone would design a concave runway, that would hold water during >rain, I would not want to land there. I assume they are all flat or >slightly convex. =======Some of the old runways that i have landed on have ruts where years of landing have somewhat pounded down the surface...these ruts hold water and cause severe hydroplaning problems on high speed landings. Cost me at least one set of skins on an F-4. Most of the runways do seem to be somewhat higher in the middle where the water will run of to each side. There are also the ones that have grooves cut into the landing surface and those that have porous asphalt surface that lets the water drain off of the surface. Interestingly, the water comes back to the top when it freezes, giving a form of black ice...not nice. Somehow we need some good all weather surfaces...Heated with drainage? Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:52 AM 11/11/96, you wrote: >I asked the chief instructor of the airline i work for today about >crokked 737s and he says yes it does happen and he has attributed this to >some sort of tolerated offset on the main landing gear. > >I suggested cross-wind and single-engine-taxi but the opinion stayed wiht >the main landing gear. =====I thought that we had put this to bed already. The main gear on the 737 has a small amount of swivel built into it so the gear can relieve some of the loads during landings and turns. This causes the offset taxi condition in crosswinds, engine out taxi, etc. No big deal. The nose gear is on the centerline...with a little bit of L & R play. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:15 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Bob Falkiner (falkiner@interlog.com) wrote: : Since aircraft take off with lots of fuel, the vapour space is minimized : at takeoff, and combined with depressurization, and low fuel use, the : amount of makeup gas needed on board during a typical long haul flight : would be very small, and would easily be in the range of the gas : diffusion systems, without use of any cryogenic or high pressure storage : systems.. It seems as if that particular TW800 flight took off with a fair sized tank empty or nearly so! -- Gerry From kls Mon Nov 18 10:11:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Nov 96 10:11:15 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 8 Nov 1996, Bob Standaert wrote: > Nitrogen gas has a density of 1.25 g/l at 0 C, 1 atmosphere pressure. > For the liquid, it is 808 g/l at -196 C, for a volume ratio of 646:1. > If the fuel capacity of a 747 is about 200 kl, you would need 250 kg, or > 310 l, of lN2, to replace it. The dewars (vacuum jacketed storage > vessels) we have hold 200 l of lN2 and weigh about 120 kg empty. Two > full tanks on a plane adds up to about 560 kg plus plumbing and > hardware, and the cost for the liquid would be about $40 at our price. > (Perhaps the airlines could make up for it by charging the passengers > extra for the spectacle of the refill -- lots of fog and noise coming > from the belly of the plane!) > > Weight and headaches aside, liquid nitrogen is not without its hazards. > Some things you need to worry about from a leak: > > 1. Oxygen displacement. A big leak that evaporated in a confined area > would asphyxiate any living being within (what is the volume of the > cargo hold?). > > 2. Cold damage. Cooling things to -200 C tends to change their > mechanical properties. snip > 3. Oxygen condensation. Surfaces cooled by lN2 can condense O2 from > the air; lO2 has the nasty property of reacting with any combustible > material it touches, often explosively. In the lab, this problem arises > most commonly when air gets into a liquid-nitrogen cooled vapor trap. > Considering the danger of oxygen condensation should that occur, it would seem to me that an onboard nitrogen separation system such as that used on the C-17 would be better for airline use than a cryogenic system like that on the C-5. Still, I have never heard of a C-5 being in danger because of the inert gas system so they must have solved the problems involved. I would like to hear from any aircrew, mechanics or engineers who have worked with the inert gas systems on either of the two planes about the pros and cons. As I visualize it, the greatest demand on the nitrogen system would be in the descent stage of a flight, as it had to maintain steadily increasing pressure in the nearly empty fuel tanks. At a rough estimate, presuming that a C-17 carried 200,000 pounds of fuel, and was descending as 5,000 feet per minute at sea level with empty tanks, the inert gas system would have to generate about 1,000 cubic feet of nitrogen per minute to keep air out. Of course, this would be a transient demand, which might make a difference in the size of the components required. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:28 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: American to place order for 100 or more Boeing planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Today's Wall Street Journal has an article on page A3 (with a pointer at the top of the Business and Finance column on the front page) that says American Airlines is expected to announce an order on Thursday for 100 or more Boeing planes. The article says the order will consist of 12 777s, 75 737s, and a small number of 757s and 767s, with delivery to being in 1998. Specific models were not mentioned, but the article talks about the 737s as being 150-seat planes and replacements for older aircraft, specifically, American's 75 727-200s. That suggests the 737-800, largest of the upcoming third generation. (First delivery of this version will be in early 1998, to launch customer Hapag-Lloyd.) The article describes the 777 as a 359-passenger plane and talks about it as a replacement for the MD-11 on international routes, and also an economical way to open new routes to Asia. Boeing's WWW page lists the 777-300 as seating 368-394 pax in a three-class configuration, with the -200 seating 305 in three-class and 375 in two-class configs. Based on those seat counts, it's hard to figure which one American might be ordering, but since AA seemed to think even the -200 was too big for their needs, the -200 would seem more likely. Presumably the others will be the 757-200 and 767-300(ER), the same as AA's recent orders for those types. AA had been interested in the 757-300 a few years ago, but it seems unlikely that they'd opt for the new version unless ordering a larger number of planes. The expected order will be contingent upon ratification of a new, six- year contract with the pilots. The 777 and 737 orders will include a "unique structure for 'aircraft purchasing rights' -- an open-ended right to purchase jets at an agreed-upon price" instead of traditional orders and options, according to the WSJ. "The structure lays out a firm pricing table to American, but doesn't tie future orders to specific dates." The article interprets this as an indication that AA has decided that their 260 MD-80s will eventually be replaced with 737s. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:28 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar >Altitude information would be better but both the altitude and >vertical speed comes via the staic port. After looking this is up again I see this going to require somemore research. The ADCs feed: Altitude Altitude Rate True Airspeed to the IRS. The IRS in turn outputs: Attitude Mag Heading Vertical Speed Angular Rates Linear Acceleration Present Position True Heading Ground Track Vector Wind Vector Whether the IRS uses any of the ADC info to calculate VS is unclear. The IRS should certainly be able to figure it out using the accelerometers. I do know that we've never fixed a VSI problem by changing the ADC, only the IRS has fixed this. I'm only talking about 757/767 here. From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:28 From: Derek Clarke Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GEC-Marconi Inflight Systems bush@lf.hp.com (Joe Bush) wrote: >You make a good point but I believe he was pointing out that all of the >information is already available to the flight computers and all that is >needed is some software. I think each accident should yield changes that >keep dumb mistakes by fallible humans from killing unsuspecting passengers. So you want less software, not more... From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:29 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca > Scott Odle (s_odle@earthlink.net) wrote: The > : basic question is where do we stop when it comes to adding requirements to > : prevent accidents due to someones dumb mistake. Should we require that the > : structure have an even greater factor of safety, make them carry even more > : fuel, etc. just because someone might decide to exceed the limitations of the > : aircraft or not do a proper pre-flight. The problem is that in such a complex piece of machinery (and now also software), errors are bound to be made. Someone supposedly did not pack those oxygen canisters on that Valuejet plane, Someone forgot to remove a piece of tape on an air inlet, somone forgot to but a rubber gasket thinking it was already in, or some pilot makes some kamakaze manoevers to show off and ends up crashing the plane. While it is impossible to foreseee ALL possible mistakes, with experience, you learn what type of mistakes are most common and can take actions to either prevent or minimize their results. Airbus knew of a problem of thrust reversers being activated prior to landing, so it put in logic to prevent this. Then, it found out that under certain conditions, the tests to see of plane was on ground were not true and had to make changes to their logic to accomodate such events. Many planes have problems, and the manufacturer and or airline issues directives to pilots on how to avoid such problems. With every crash that occurs, I suspect that flight simulators are being updated to simulate these conditions to train pilots on how to handle this. So with time, such problems become less important. I think that with airliners that progress, air traffic that progresses, and those once in a million accidents that actually occur because planes fly more than a million times (!), I think that it is fair to say that the learning will never finish. And as we learn, we try to prevent problems. From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:29 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , bush@lf.hp.com says... >You make a good point but I believe he was pointing out that all of the >information is already available to the flight computers and all that is >needed is some software. I think each accident should yield changes that >keep dumb mistakes by fallible humans from killing unsuspecting passengers. Its a good point, I am just not sure I agree with the word "each" which to me means every. There must be some limit. From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:29 From: csc4dsg@sun.leeds.ac.uk (D S Graf) Subject: evacuation... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Leeds, England Reply-To: csc4dsg@sun.leeds.ac.uk Regarding aircraft rotating during rear-door evacuation, did you ever see the photo of the PanAm 747 which made an emergency landing at SFO ? It had been unable to acheive a good climb rate on take off and the result was a brush through the approach lights at the reciprocal runway threshold. This damaged the tail and severed some hydraulic lines. On landing the aircraft left the runway and came to rest in the field at the centre of the airport. As the passengers evacuated via the rear door, the plane rocked back until the nos was in the air, rendering the forward doors useless as exits, with the chutes dangling in the air. This occured because the centre-landing gear bogies ("body-gears") failed to extend due to damage caused on takeoff. It's described in detail in the book "Emergency On The Flightdeck", a fascinating read for anyone interested in safety aspects of commercial aviation. dan -- ---- go hang a salami. I'm a lasagna hog --- dan bork bork From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:29 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: ATR 72 EMR evacuation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:00 PM 10/8/96, you wrote: >Imagine an ATR 72 to be evacuated urgently on the ground: We suppose an >a (right) engine Fire, so that everybody is rushing to the back of the >a/c. Will the craft's rear fall on the ground (tailscrape) due to the >mass of people (including Cockpit crew) rushing to the back? In normal >OPS there is the necessity to fix a stick under the fuselage below the >rear doors to avoid the described effect when boarding/ disembarking the >a/c. ========Is it not fair to say that the people in the back of the airplane will be the first ones out of the door? In this case, the weight in the back should go down very fast...and the airplane would probably not rock back on it's butt. It is an interesting question as to the certification which usually involves a full evacuation of the airplane via some or all of the doors. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:29 From: Ed Hahn Subject: TCAS and Transponders [long] (was Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) writes: > >For the TCAS-III (in project) : The TCAS can generate manoeuvering in both > >vertical and horizontal plan. > > There will be no TCAS III. For whatever reason it will be designated TCAS IV. The reason it is designated TCAS IV is that the method for determining the correct horizontal resolution manuever will be entirely different than initially envisioned in TCAS III. One of the results of TCAS II experience has been that the directional antenna used by the TCAS processor to assign a bearing to a received transponder reply is not accurate enough to generate an accurate horizontal position, and thus a safe horizontal resolution. TCAS IV will use additional position information encoded on an air-to-air data link to generate the bearing information, so the accuracy of the directional antenna will not be a factor. In order to compare and contrast the two, the decision was made to refer to the new system as TCAS IV, to prevent confusion between technologies. In summary: TCAS I: Uses a directional antenna to view Mode A, C, or S transponders on other aircraft to generate a situation display and "Traffic Advisory" (TA) for nearby targets. This TA is used to help pilots visually locate nearby co-altitude traffic (Mode C) or unknown altitude traffic (Mode A). TCAS II: Uses a directional antenna to view Mode A, C, or S transponders on other aircraft to generate a situation display and a TA for nearby targets. For target aircraft with Mode C or S transponders, the TCAS display can generate a "Resolution Advisory" (RA), which commanded vertical manuever (climb/descent) to avoid nearby co-altitude traffic. For target aircraft with Mode S transponders *AND* TCAS II equipment, RAs will be coordinated between aircraft (e.g. the two TCAS processors will cooperatively agree to send one aircraft in a climb and the other in a descent.) Note: aircraft equipped with TCAS II must have Mode S transponders installed. TCAS III: Attempts to use the TCAS directional antenna to assign a bearing to other aircraft, and thus be able to generate a horizontal manuever (e.g. turn left or right). Judged by the industry to be unfeasible due to limitations in the accuracy of the TCAS directional antennas. The directional antennas were judged not to be accurate enough to generate an accurate horizontal-plane position, and thus an accurate horizontal resolution. TCAS IV: Uses additional information encoded by the target aircraft in the transponder reply (i.e. target encodes it's own position into the transponder signal) to generate a horizontal resolution to an RA. Obviously, this requires the target aircraft to have some data link capability at a minimum. In addition, some reliable source of position (e.g. GPS) is needed on the target aircraft in order for it to be encoded. Mode A: A transponder which can encode a number into the reply signal. This code is a four digit octal number XXXX, with each digit having the value 0-7. The famous "1200" VFR transponder code is an example of a Mode A code. Mode C: A transponder which can encode its altitude into the reply signal. This code is known as the "Grey Code", and it encodes 100 ft. increments into 12 bits. Note that Mode C transponders can also encode Mode A, and that ground radar typically alternates which information it asks for on successive sweeps. Mode S: A transponder which can be selectively interrogated (hence Mode S = Select), which can also encode additional information into the data stream. This transponder essentially gives a basic data link capability, which in TCAS II is used to coordinate RA manuevers. TCAS IV could use Mode S data link capability to encode position information into TCAS replies. TCAS IV development is still underway, but it is not likely to be fielded in the next year or so, as there are still technical and institutional issues to resolve. Also, new trends in data link such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) have popped up recently, and have pointed out a need to re-evaluate whether a data link system dedicated to collision avoidance such as TCAS IV should be incorporated into a more generic system of air-to-air data link for additional applications. These issues are being worked by the government and industry in groups such as RTCA. Note that I am writing this posting to provide information only. This post does not intend to endorse the merit of any particular solution for collision avoidance or other application. Any errors in the above are mine. 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 Wed Nov 20 05:48:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:29 From: shahid siddiqi Subject: Indian Mid Air Collision Investigation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: as&m Here're some excerpts from an Indian Newspaper regarding the collision: NEW DELHI, November 15: The Court of Inquiry into Tuesday's mid-air collision between two airliners has been asked to submit its findings to the Government by February 15. The team will visit the crash site tomorrow. The Government today issued a notification, setting into motion a formal investigation into the mishap by High Court judge R C Lahoti. Lahoti will be assisted by two experts, who have been appointed assessors to the Court. They are Capt A K Verma, General Manager (Training) with Air-India and Air Commodore (retired) T Pannu of the Indian Air Force. V K Arora, Controller of Airworthiness, Directorate of Civil Aviation will function as Secretary to the Court. The notification said, ``It appears to Central Government that it is expedient to hold formal investigations into the circumstances of the said accident.'' The probe has been ordered under Rule 75 of the Aircraft Rules 1937. Under the rules such inquiries are held in an open court, but there is a provision allowing evidence to be recorded in camera if the Court deems fit. All sides can demand to be heard at the inquiry. The Court will be based at Delhi. Though the terms of reference of the Court were officially not given, it is understood that it will state its findings as to the cause of the accident and the circumstances thereof. The Court may add any recommendation and observation which it thinks fit with a view to preservation of life and avoidance of similar accidents in future. The Court has also been given the brief to make a recommendation for the cancellation, suspension or endorsement of any license or certificate issued under the 1937 Aircraft Rules. Since the two aircraft involved in the disaster were registered abroad, accredited representatives of Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan may participate in the investigations accompanied by a technical advisor. The immediate task before the Court of Inquiry is to decide whether the black boxes of the ill-fated aircraft are to be sent for decoding to obtain vital clues on the possible cause of the crash. Kazakhstan has already requested that the black boxes of the Il-76 aircraft comprising the cockpit voice recorder and the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) be sent to Moscow for decoding process. The decoding exercise may take upto 10 days. Meanwhile, France, Germany, Britain and Spain have expressed sympathy over the mishap. Ambassadors and charges d' affaires from these countries met Civil Aviation Minister C M Ibrahim today, offering assistance which may be needed by the authorities. Civil Aviation officials are also reportedly in touch with Saudia, to get the airline pay up the mandatory compensation of $ 20,000 to each of the victims. A majority of passengers on the Dahran-bound flight were Indians. The Civil Aviation Ministry said today that the sophisticated radar system, bought from American-company Raytheon, was likely to be commissioned by next March. The testing of the system still remains to be carried out, it said. The government will also send a formal request soon to the US administration to make available for questioning pilots of an American military plane who reportedly witnessed the mid-air collision between two planes on Tuesday even as an official panel called for two separate air corridors at the Delhi airport. The US military plane was in the vicinity of the mid-air collision. The demand by the Air Traffic Control Guild for two separate corridors for incoming and outgoing aircraft at the Delhi airport secured the endorsement of an official panel headed by former Air Marshal J K Seth. The panel, set up in September to review the air navigation system, also recommended the setting up of a government-run institute for flight safety. The Seth Committee also wanted the Civil Aviation authorities to hold talks with the Indian Air Force (IAF) on the question of making available two separate air corridors for civilian aircraft. The IAF has been restricting some parts of the air space over New Delhi for security reasons. ``There should be separate corridors for ascending and descending aircraft,'' the Seth Panel said while also recommending setting up of a national board for air accidents. According to the Seth Committee, separate air corridors would lead to easier targeting of aircraft during peak hours. However, this facility is no guarantee for avoiding air accidents, it said. Meanwhile, 80 more bodies of the victims were shifted to the capital today for embalming. The bodies, which have not been claimed by anyone till now, were brought from the crash site in Charkhi Dadri in Haryana in seven trucks to Sucheta Kriplani Hospital and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences here and will be kept for identification after the embalming process gets over. Of the 80 bodies, 36 have been taken to the Sucheta Kriplani Hospital and the rest to the AIIMS, hospital sources said. The unclaimed bodies could not be moved to the local hospital in Dadri since there was no mortuary and the bodies had started decomposing. Only 125 of the 312 passengers of the Saudi plane could be identified. Bodies of all the 39 victims who were on board the Kazakh airliner have been identified. From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:30 From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: Any good biography of Geoffrey de Havilland (+info on John Cunningham) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Gerry McMahon wrote: > Info on >>biography or any publications of DH test pilot John Cunningham also >>appreciated. > I cannot find anything on John Cunningham. "Night Fighter" by Rawnsley and Wright (Collins, 1957) is about Cunningham's wartime activities. Both were his radar operators. Gerald Wilson From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:30 From: Bill Chivers Subject: Re: India:747/Tu154 collision +TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chivers Consultants In article , Scott Odle > >There will be no TCAS III. For whatever reason it will be designated TCAS IV. If I Remember Correctly: TCAS III - Intention was to provide horizontal avoidance, as well as the vertical methods used in TCAS II. Abandoned due to problems with insufficient aerial resolution in the horizontal plane, such that position of the conflicting traffic could not be determined accurately enough to figure out the avoid. Therefore no TCAS III. TCAS IV - To use GPS position info, sent via Mode S to the conflicting traffic. Exact position information will allow horizontal avoids to be implemented. Bill Chivers 'my other signature file has something funny at the bottom of it' From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:30 From: qtrinkle@crl.com (Kevin Trinkle) Subject: Re: mid-air collision near Delhi References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The PSA History Page kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >Er, 182 was the PSA flight number! Let's try that again. >150 is the toll according to The PSA History Page, located at >http://futures.wharton.upenn.edu/~basic95/kevins_html/psa.html. >That count includes 137 on the PSA 727, 2 on the Cessna, and 11 >on the ground. >144 was the count according to an article in the San Jose Mercury >News on Wednesday. Either way, the crash you mention would be the >worst mid-air. True, until Delhi. The original Unions and Tribunes from then (which are in my archives, and haven't yellowed that quickly) list 150. Later sources that I have list 144 - 129 passengers (39 employees traveling back to SAN), 6 crew, 2 in the Cessna, and 7 on the ground. Maybe people would learn that you shouldn't have planes approaching a runway one way and departing the other (the Cessna was doing ILS approaches on runway 9, the 727 was landing on 27...) - it only took a crash for the FAA to learn that here. KT From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:30 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Kegworth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Bill Chivers writes > >The real shame about this accident is that if the engine had just held >together a few seconds more they might have just cleared the M1 cutting, >or if it had come apart a few seconds earlier they might have had long >enough to successfully relight the good engine. > >Also, an awareness that disconnecting the Autothrottle would affect fuel >flow to *both* engines might have helped the crew avoid misdiagnosing >the failure. Personally, I think there is a case for better technical >training for professional pilots, perhaps concentrating a bit more on >general engineering principals & control systems. > As I remember the crew had it in their heads that flight deck air came from one pack and one engine only. When they had vibs and smoke in the f/deck they shutdown that engine and it cleared. Unfortunatly they could not see the vib indicators clearly due mainly to the smoke and shut down the wrong engine. The vibs and smoke cleared because they put the running sick engine to idle while they did a power off descent on a divertion into their homebase at East Midlands. The engine fault did not show at idle and only when they put power back on did they realise their error. The LCD display unit on that a/c has very small engine vibration indicators, less than an inch dimeter and more importantly there are no latching warnings to say when an engine vibs have gone over a pre set level. With smoke in the flightdeck the displays could not be seen clearly and when the vibs and smoke cleared there was no exceedance warning to say which engine had been in trouble. All a/c I can think of have some form of latch on the vibs system, though this can be reset. I dont know of any follow up action on this one. -- john relph. From kls Wed Nov 20 05:48:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 05:48:30 From: fritzs@ohsu.EDU (Steven E. Fritz) Subject: ValuJet speculation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University The transcripts of the ValuJet crash that came out in the newspaper here today suggest that the pilots may have opened the cockpit side windows to let out smoke. There is the sound of rushing wind on the recorder. They were around 9,000 feet. Would there have been enough pressure difference and fresh oxygen from the open windows to draw fire and smoke rapidly from the passenger cabin forward to the cockpit, thus making the situation even worse as far as ability to control the aircraft? From kls Wed Nov 20 12:28:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 12:28:57 From: John Harvie Subject: Airbus 10, Boeing 10, in Air France orders Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Air France announced it has agreed to take delivery of 10 Airbus A340-300E and 10 Boeing 777-200(IGW) aircraft "in the next few years." The Airbus order is an increase to ten of an existing confirmed order for five A340-300E, and the Boeing order is an agreement in lieu of an earlier canceled order for seven 767-300S and eight 737-500S. They have also taken an option for an additional 10 777-200 IGW. Specs: A340-300E will be powered by CFM 56-5C4 engines (270-ton MTOW) and carry 252 passengers in 3-class configuration. 777-200 IGW (Increased Gross Weight) will be powered by GE-90 engines (648,000-lb MTOW) and carry 288 passengers in 3 classes. Additionally, AF announced their existing fleet of 11 A340-300 aircraft will be re-engined from CFM 56-5C2 engines to the CFM 56-5C3 to increase MTOW from 257 tons to 260 tons. John Harvie, Firefly Network, Inc., visit: http://www.firefly.com 17 Sellers Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, 617.234.5479, Fax 234.5414 Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. :) From kls Wed Nov 20 12:28:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 12:28:57 From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company In article , Andrea Tylczak wrote: >Excuse me for interrupting, but I think you're experiencing technical >difficulties. Generally, mine are more social than technical, but then everyone is different. :-) >>Are you absolutely certain about this? My understanding has been that >>this was discussed, but never actually implemented. > >Yes, this is correct. Every commercial airplane made by Douglas has >blow-out panels or the equivalent to equalize pressure between >compartments in case a pressure bulkhead is ruptured. In general, this >is not just between the passenger cabin and the cargo compartment, but >also between various compartments (lavatory and passenger cabin, cockpit >and avionics compartment, etc.) I can't speak from personal experience, >but I would expect that Boeing has similar designs. This is required for >certification by FAR 25. Yes, all Boeing heavy jet transports have blowout panels in the floor and other places to accomodate the largish airflows associated with rapid decompression. As I recall, just about everything has a blowout panel, lavs, flight deck, cargo holds... The ones in the floor are next to the sidewalls, right over the crease beams (called a "coat hanger" by the assembly mechanics, FWIW). -- 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 Wed Nov 20 12:28:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 12:28:57 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar >Airbus knew of a problem of thrust reversers being activated prior to >landing, so it put in logic to prevent this. Then, it found out that >under certain conditions, the tests to see of plane was on ground were >not true and had to make changes to their logic to accomodate such >events. This is not just Airbus. As I recall, the incident involving the Piedmont 737 that went off the end of the runway and ended up against railroad tracks was very similar to the LH A320 in Warsaw. The Piedmont incident went something like this. *Landed fast and long on a wet runway. *Autospoilers didn't deploy because wheel-spin up didn't happen because the wheels were hydroplaning. *Reversers didn't deploy because the right gear wasn't planted on the runway There were more things involved but my memory fails me. I don't have details on the A320 system but for TR deployment on the 737-200 the engine must be running, the fire handle must be in and the right main gear must be on the ground. This is very simple logic and full of holes. From kls Wed Nov 20 12:28:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 96 12:28:57 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: ValuJet speculation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar >Would there have been enough pressure difference and fresh oxygen from >the open windows to draw fire and smoke rapidly from the passenger >cabin forward to the cockpit I recall a smoke clearing procedure in the DC-9 emergency checklist that instructed the crew to unlock the forward galley service door (the small one on the right side of the airplane). Perhaps a DC-9 driver with a current checklist can verify this. From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:18 From: fredch@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Fred Christiansen) Subject: Re: American to place order for 100 or more Boeing planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett Packard, Fort Collins, Colorado Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: > The article interprets this as an indication that > AA has decided that their 260 MD-80s will eventually be replaced with 737s. It would seem MD would have hoped for newer model MD-8x/9x orders from AA. So, another blow to MD (?). -- Fred Christiansen, a Canajan (Eh?) and HP-ite in Colorado #include : I do NOT speak for HP, only for myself. Business: http://talon.fc.hp.com/~fredch/ fredch@fc.hp.com Personal: http://www.frii.com/~fredch/ fredch@frii.com From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:18 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Kegworth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article "john r." writes: >As I remember the crew had it in their heads that flight deck air came >from one pack and one engine only. That was suggested as a possible issue (and was addressed in Flight International). The idea is that with systems training going down the toilet, with more emphasis being spent on the FMC, motor skills, company policy, etc., a lot of "real-world" training is benefiting from cockpit hand-me-downs. In the case of the air conditioning ducting, it was suggested, some detail changed between the -100/200 and the -300, and that was offered as a possible reason for the crew shutting down the wrong engine. While credible (and who knows, it may lead to other inflight incidents), I recall it turned out not to have much to do with this crash. >The LCD display unit on that a/c has very small engine vibration >indicators, less than an inch dimeter and more importantly there are no >latching warnings to say when an engine vibs have gone over a pre set >level. The Smiths Industries LCD center panel engine instrumentation *was* implicated as an issue, as I recall. -- 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 Nov 21 03:02:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:18 From: Adam Dobrzycki Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "David G. Davidson" writes: (...) => As I recall, the incident involving the => Piedmont 737 that went off the end of the runway and ended up against => railroad tracks was very similar to the LH A320 in Warsaw. Pardon my ignorance, but I have never heard of this incident. When/where was that? If this happened before the A320 crash in Warsaw, it would be amazing that the logic preventing this type of accidents wasn't built into Airbus' software... [Disclaimer: I am NOT an Airbus basher. Just curious.] => I don't have details on the A320 system but for TR deployment on the => 737-200 the engine must be running, the fire handle must be in and the => right main gear must be on the ground. This is very simple logic and => full of holes. I recall hearing somewhere that, unlike later -300 and up versions, the 737-200 has to have all wheels on the ground (front too) for the thrust reversers to be activated, simply because there is a possibilty of the reversers touching the runway when the front wheel is still up. Could anyone verify that? Adam -- Adam Dobrzycki AXAF Science Center adam@head-cfa.harvard.edu Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:18 From: jlund@aztec.asu.edu (JAMES H. LUND) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Arizona State University I've been reading all the usual excuses, but no real reason why the good old USA, where GPS was invented, still do not have GPS equipment in most commercial aircraft, even for use as a back-up. Why not consider a few reasons for installation? Reason 1: GPS also provides reliable information on altitude and speed, and makes an extremely useful back up, even when not being used for the primary navigation device. They often also include a memory database to warn of infringement of restricted airspace, and emergency features to give you quick reference to alternate airports including distance, direction, etc. Reason 2: Many of the newer GPS units also have a battery built in, which means the system can operate completely independent of all the aircraft systems. In the event of complete EFIS system failure, and/or electrical system failure (which seems to still keep happening in the real world), what system is better qualified to serve as a stand-by or back-up information system for our cockpit crews? Reason 3: The price of FAA certified GPS receivers is not that high. Even when certified for IFR enroute navigation. Many general aviation aircraft have FAA certified GPS on board and are doing away with the ADF, Loran and other equipment. While you wouldn't want a $300 hand- held GPS, neither do you need a $20,000 mil spec unit. Reason 4: As an FAA licensed pilot, aircraft mechanic and inspector, I can assure you that installation costs for GPS are not all that high. Especially when they do not need to be integrated into the FMS, EFIS, etc. Total integration of all the instrument systems may be more convenient when everything is working; unfortunately people are dying in the process of discovering that our near perfect aircraft still malfunction occasionally. Reason 5: Some third world countries have already adopted GPS as a standard enroute navigation device. Several of them have made it mandatory. While most are not certified for precision approaches, it is highly reliable and accurate for navigation. So, why is GPS installation is considered too expensive? Just how many aircraft could be equipped for the price of 1 Boeing 757 aircraft lost recently due to malfunctioning cockpit EFIS systems? Or, to ask another way, how much is that cost, relative to the insurance premium increase when we lose an aircraft worth $60+ million, and then face lawsuits from the families of hundreds of passengers? Would a series of lawsuits against airlines for negligence (failure to buy an and use readily available technology) to convince the bean counters and bureaucrats (in the government and in the airlines) to consider all available alternatives? Jim Lund -- q From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:19 From: Bob Immel Subject: Desert airliner storage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Reply-To: immel@earthlink.net I recently moved to Phoenix, Arizona, and was wondering where these big "aircraft parking lots" I here about are in the Desert. I've heard that they are somewhere between Phoenix and Tuscon. Does anyone know exactly where they are in Arizona, and if they are open to the public? I've also heard there is an aircraft museum in Tuscon...can anyone give additional info on that. Thanks! From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:19 From: midibu@hsv.mindspring.com (MiDiBu) Subject: Break the VSI? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: midibu@hsv.mindspring.com Tom Stybr wrote: >It has been reported that a maintenance crew covered the static ports >with duct tape during a skin polishing task and then neglected to remove >it. The pilot also failed to notice the covered ports during his >walk-around (if he did one). >This explains the pilot not knowing his airspeed or altitude. The static >lines would have had higher than actual static pressure causing >instruments to read lower altitude than actual (his ground prox alarm >was sounding). The airspeed instruments use both static ports and pitot >probes to determine airspeed. >Dense fog contributed to no visual checks of the instrument readings, >the pilot became disoriented, you know the rest. Yes that is true. But what I'm wondering is that, from what I've heard, the pilots told ATC that they had a problem. They tried, I guess, use the radio altimeter to get their altitude. The ATC told them that they were at (approx) 9600 feet and to descend. They did and skipped off of the water, and cartwheeled. One of the oldest tricks that a pilot learns is that if the static ports are clogged up, one breaks the glass on the vertical speed indicator (VSI). Before you see the problem with this I would like to address two things: 1. The cabin was pressurized. OK, depressurize it. At near sea level it would cause no harm. 2. The plane had a glass cockpit (ie, no VSI to break). Well, that may be true ( I really don't think that smashing a fire axe into a CRT would help the air data computer one bit). However, in all of the planes that I've seen, there are three little standby instruments on the panel, between the pilots, that give the most vital information. There is a "JET" attitude indicator. There is an airspeed indicator. And there is an altimeter. They are there purposely to give the pilots a last chance ability to fly the airplane. The "JET" is powered by a self-contained battery. The other two, as I have assumed up to this point, are pitot/static instruments that have been in use since the 1930's. I think that the "JET" even has a slip/skid ball. Given that one can fly an airplane on "needle, ball, airspeed, and altimeter", would it not be possible to crack the glass on either the altimeter, or the airspeed indicator, and at least have a reasonable idea of the the actual configuration (not exactly the word that I'm looking for) at least to the precision to determine that you were indeed closer to 9600 feet, rather than sea level. I don't want to dwell on this, but I did take off one time with the statics ports on my Mooney clogged up because I had waxed the airplane before the flight. It was a short runway, acceleration seemed good, so I just flew it when the airpeed only read zero. A perfect VFR day and it was no big deal. And, no, I didn't break the VSI face glass. But, the reason that I'm posting this is - Could the pilots of a 757 break the glass on the pitot/static instruments and undo the damage done by the ground crew/bad walkaround? Mike Weller From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:19 From: Judith Patterson Subject: Aircraft Emissions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Canada Reply-To: patj@alcor.concordia.ca I am a researcher in the field of aircraft emission inventories at Concordia university. Right now, I am looking at the variability that can occur in the emissions produced during takeoff and landing operations at airports. I am hoping to hear from those who actually do the flying - According to the EPA and ICAO standards, the portions of the LTO cycle are divided as follows with power rating and time in mode: takeoff 100% 0.7 minutes climbout 85% 2.2 minutes approach 30% 4.0 minutes taxi/idle/queue highly variable, depends on airports, standard assumed to be 26 minutes These estimates for time in mode were derived from industry averages, and are for large, turbojet or turbofan aircraft, not turboprop or piston. They have their own times in mode estimates. What I am curious to know is how much variability there can be in the amount of time in takeoff and climbout, and to a lesser degree, the approach phases. For example - what is the difference in the amount of time at 100% power for a fully loaded 747-400, lumbering down the runway, and a 747 only 40% full with passengers? How much variability can there be? I have conducted my own unofficial survey - all 747-400's need to be at 165 mph to lift up the front wheel (they now show ground speed on the monitors on the trans-Atlantic flights) but it seemed that when I was on a flight only about 35% loaded that we lifted off about half way down the runway. How great a range can there be in the amount of time in mode? Do airlines make changes in the amount of fuel that they put on knowing the approximate passenger consist? How great a difference does this make in takeoff weight? I would greatly appreciate any and all information. Please cc all replies to my e-mail: patj@alcor.concordia.ca Thanks, Judith From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:19 From: Sten Lasu Subject: Aloha accident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telia Internet Services Does anyone know where to find pics of the Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 who lost some airframe structure in 1988? sten@lasu.pp.se Sten Lasu From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:19 From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Stage 3 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Adaptive Information Systems -- A Hitachi Company Reply-To: malc@deltanet.com Scott Odle wrote: > Why should the requirements change simply because some airline failed to plan > ahead? The same thing happened with TCAS and also happens from time to time > with ADs. For noise and TCAS there was plenty of notice and a phase in process > (by the percentage of aircraft in your airline). Many either did not realize > or choose to ignore the impending deadlines. Maybe in the hope that the > deadlines would be extended. When the deadlines came near many asked for > exemptions, and as far as I know all were denied as far as TCAS was concerned. As far as I recall, British Airways and Air France gained TCAS implementation extensions (not exemptions) for their Concordes. > Why should safety or in the case of noise why should the congresional mandate > to reduce aircaft noise (at the publics insistence) be ignored simply because > of someones poor planning. Absolutely. Stage III noise rules have been known for a *long* time. If a carrier hasn't planned far enough in advance in order to get new B737's, then they should get Airbus or McD products (Oh-ho! like USAir, perhaps?) Malc. From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:19 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Long term planning for STAGE III References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In Jean-Francois Mezei writes: >In other words, should the airline decide to hush kit its 737s, how >long would the process take ? Is this done during a D check, or would >a 737 be take off-line for a few days to be hushkitted without other >checks ? I recently, and casually, observed a small airline's first hushkit job. It was a DC9-30, and was programmed for two weeks, which it took. It was not part of a C check, but included installation of TCAS and Forward Looking Windshear weather radar at the same time. I believe it was a kit by ABS. It added a section ahead of the core, and one aft. Some of the time may have been in re-working the engines while the plane sat, as JT-8D's are getting scarce. This job could be done in conjunction with a C check (annual for practical purposes), on pretty much a non-interference basis. That means it would take a year to get a whole fleet cycled through. RD From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:19 From: "EMILY WILSON" Subject: Re: Long term planning for STAGE III References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: STAR W Not every member state of ICAO has enacted legislation to comply with the Stage 3 sunset, so these aircraft can continue to fly in those nations past the year 2000. Timing for hushkitting is highly dependent on the leadtimes quoted by the hushkit provider, plus (and probably more significant) availability and timing for your selected installation facility. Leasing is a reasonable alternative to hushkitting or purchasing new planes, particularly if the Lessor can help place your noisy planes in a country where they are allowed to continue flying. From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:19 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Long term planning for STAGE III References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca says... >In the year 2000, such aircraft will not longer be able to fly, right ? >So the airline, which relies heavily on such planes will either need to >buy new ones or hushkit them, right ? As of right now, 50% (at least) of the operators fleet most already be stage 3. >In other words, should the airline decide to hush kit its 737s, how long >would the process take ? Is this done during a D check, or would a 737 >be take off-line for a few days to be hushkitted without other checks ? It depends on the aircraft and the modifications required to meet the Stage 3 limits. Some aircraft require little or almost no modification (e.g. L-188, and CV-580). Others require extenisive enigine modification such as nacelle or tailpipe acoustic lining (new tailpipe), respaced inlet guide vanes, installation of a internal exhaust gas mixer, or installation of a multilobed tailpipe just to name a few I could think of quickly. From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:20 From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank RD Rick wrote: > There may be more A320's built than Comets, but the A320 may still have > a worse accident record, which at one time was the worst since the > beginning of the jet age. Worse by what criteria? There have been 4 A320 hull losses (AF, Indian, IT, Lufthansa) out of 600-some built so far. There were also at least 4 Comet hull losses (the 2 in-flight disintegrations, plus landing accidents at Karachi and Rome), out of a much smaller number built. More passengers may have died, but normalize by passengers carried and that's no longer true. Besides, more passengers have died on 737s and 747s too, although again once you normalize that may no longer be true. The A320 may well have the worst record among new-generation aircraft, but claiming it has the worst record "since the beginning of the jet age" is nonsense unless you use some really bizarre criterion. Stefano From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:20 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: 777 Order Book Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Can anyone provide me a quick list of 777 orders and options that's fairly up to date? I thought Boeing's web site had such information, but apparently it doesn't. TIA, Jennings Heilig From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:20 From: mdw@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz (Woodhams) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Auckland trussell@magmacom.com (Tim Russell) writes: >H2 powered jets are not new it was tested in the 50'a. >I read a quote that H2 was a "terrific fuel for turbines" >I expect that hydrogen will replace fossel fuels in the future >Let's see, you get it from water, when it burns the byproduct is water >do you see a benifit. But you need electricity to create the hydrogen. If this electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, *more* fossil fuel will be used than currently (because the hydrogen creation process is not 100% efficient, extra energy will be needed for cryogenics, and the low density of liquid hydrogen implies larger planes for the same payload which implies more drag.) On the other hand, the pollution will be at ground level, where it may be less damaging, and can be processed by flue gas scrubbers etc. which can't be put on an airplane. The choice of fossil fuels to use is greater. Some alternative energy sources (e.g. windmills on ocean buoys) have troubles linking to the electricity grid, so for these it may make sense to store the energy by electrolizing hydrogen out of water, and have ships come to empty the hydrogen tanks every so often. I've read in Aviation Leak about the possibility of airplanes that are basically a giant wing that flies at an angle. As I recall, these planes had a lot of volume per payload, and so would seem to go well with hydrogen power. Can somebody technical comment on this? From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:20 From: trussell@magmacom.com Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Altopia Corp. - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net Reply-To: trussell@magmacom.com On 18 Nov 96 10:11:14 , GWilson404@aol.com wrote: >The first hydrogen powered aircraft was the English Electric (now British >Aerospace) Canberra, built under license as the Martin B-57. They loaded one >tip tank with hydrogen and the other with helium for pressurisation, flew up >to high altitude conventionally then successfully switched over to hydrogen >power. The item I read was that they only fueled 1 engine on H2 but it was a Canberra, thanks for the reminder. Before I said " what's the problem (with Hydrogen)" of course some do exist. Larger vehicles ie: aircraft, ships, trucks have fewer problems that a passenger car for using H2 because it's bulky. Planes and ships can use it with ease because the size of the fuel tank is not as important but smaller vehicle such as a car currently wouldn't have a trunk, it would be all tank and then some. But this is a group on airliners so: I seem to remember seeing a Airbus test airliner in which the H2 was stored in a hump along the top the aircraft. Aircraft can also be fueled with H2 in liquid form. So for AC storing H2 fuel should not be a problem. The instillation of fueling equipment at airports would be a problem because not all airports would be converted all at once. This conversion would take place at the larger hub airports first because the first hydrogen fueled jets will be larger long distance Airliners. I feel that every pound of jet fuel not burned will help the earth (I am not really a tree hugger but it would help). These are just some ideas about how hydrogen may be put to use. I'm not an expert just someone who has an interest in the technology. From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:20 From: shahid siddiqi Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: as&m Peter Coe wrote: > Concorde is the only plane that cruises at beyond Mach 2 without reheat. > Yet another 30 year old invention that hasn't been bettered. > > On a supplemental thread, I vaguely recall that at the time of its entry > into service, Concorde's engines were claimed to be the most effecient > engine ever built - I presume in terms of thrust per pound of fuel. The > plane isn't effecient overall, because it operates in such an ineffecient > environment. Come come lets not get carried away - the laws of Thermodynamics make this claim impossible. A turbojet engine such as that of the Concorde can never beat the fuel efficiency of a high by-pass turbo fan such as the GE-90 or the Rolls Royce Trent. The thrust specific fuel consumption in cruise for the Olympus/SNECMA engine is most probably in excess of 0.8 pounds per hour of fuel per pound thrust produced as compared to 0.53 pounds/hour per pound thrust produced by the GE-90. (In afterburner it would be in excess of 1.4 and thats why the Concorde doesn't cruise supersonic with afterburners on it would drink all its fuel before crossing the Atlantic). Inmcidently the highest supersonic time pilots are Air France & British Airways Concorde pilots because they go supersonic for 2 hours or so on each Atlantic trip while Air Force pilots are barely supersonic for 5 or so at a time because fighters like the F-15 need to use afterburners to go Mach 2 and can only do this for dash or run out of fuel. The Concorde is a beautiful and reliable plane but the nature of the compromises that have to be made to go supersonic kill its aerodynamic efficiency. The cruise Lift to Drag ratio of the Concorde is approximately 7 while that of a 747-100 (same vintage as the Concorde) is around 17. This is mainly due to the low aspect ratio, highly swept wing design From kls Thu Nov 21 03:02:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 96 03:02:20 From: charlie1@easynet.co.uk (Charlie Whitaker) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None In article , Rich Webb <95rgw2@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain >this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? Mach 2.02 is the normal cruising speed, I believe. This is sustained without afterburners, although those are used for transonic acceleration. This 'supercruise' capability is essential for reasons of fuel economy. Some more interesting facts I think I remember: - As speed increases the trim must be altered. To avoid the drag which trim tabs would cause this is done by pumping fuel around, altering the centre of gravity. - During 'supercruise' the plane tends to gradually climb, so that on one side of the Atlantic it is at, say, 50,000 feet, but by the time it is across the ocean (about 2 hours later) it has climbed to around 60,000 feet. This is known as 'cruise-climb.' - The term 'supercruise' has come into vogue since the advent of the F-22. Watch out for USAnians on rec.aviation.military who claim that the F-22 will be the only aircraft in the world with 'supercruise' - they are wrong :-). Regards, Charlie From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:04 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: American Airlines press release regarding Boeing order References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California AMERICAN AIRLINES AND BOEING ANNOUNCE INNOVATIVE PARTNERING RELATIONSHIP FOR ACQUISITION OF NEW AIRCRAFT For release: 11/21/96 DFW AIRPORT, Texas -- At a press conference at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport today, American Airlines and Boeing Commercial Airplane Group announced an innovative, long-term partnering relationship. Under the terms of the agreement, Boeing will become the exclusive supplier of jet aircraft to American, in sizes ranging from the Boeing 737 to the 777, through the year 2018. American has placed firm orders for 103 aircraft, and has obtained "purchase rights" for 527 additional jets during the more than 20 year period, thus providing it with a very cost-effective means of replacing virtually its entire current fleet during the term of the agreement. The agreement includes the following aircraft: Aircraft Model Firm Order Purchase Rights Total Order Delivery (1998-2018) -------------- ----- -------- --------------- ----- 777 12 1998-2001 38 50 767-300ER 4 1998 26 30 757-200 12 1998-1999 38 50 737-600/700/800 75 1998-2001 425 500 Total 103 527 630 The arrangement with Boeing is contingent on ratification of the tentative agreement between American and the Allied Pilots Association, whose members will vote on the matter in December. "Our new partnership with Boeing is a completely new way of doing business," said American Chairman and CEO Robert L. Crandall. "It gives American a unique way to replace its existing fleet with great flexibility and at fully competitive prices. In return, Boeing, the world's premier manufacturer of commercial aircraft, obtains a major long-term agreement. It's an arrangement that will be enormously beneficial to both companies." Crandall laid out six principal benefits of the new agreement: 1. The relatively small number of firm orders and the introduction of highly flexible "purchase rights," rather than traditional delivery options, will enable American to carefully pace its acquisition of aircraft -- thus allowing it to match replacement and growth orders with the industry's notoriously cyclical nature, without weakening its balance sheet. 2. The length of the commitment will help Boeing optimize its planning and engineering processes, and will encourage its continuing efforts to reduce manufacturing costs. 3. Over the long term, the arrangement will give American unparalleled fleet commonality, which will result in substantially lower training, maintenance, and other operating costs. 4. The agreement gives American the ability to plan carefully for both aircraft replacement and fleet growth, and to optimize the mix of aircraft by size and range in accordance with changing competitive requirements and the industry's cyclicality. 5. The arrangement will help American maintain fleet leadership with respect to both noise and emissions. American has one of the youngest fleets in the U.S. airline industry, and its new arrangement with Boeing will ensure that American will have continuous access to state-of-the-art aircraft at attractive prices. 6. The agreement provides American with broad price protection provisions, which will ensure that American will not be commercially disadvantaged as to aircraft prices for more than two decades. Crandall emphasized that the arrangement is focused on providing American with a mechanism for systematically and carefully replacing its current fleet, while also providing it with the ability, at its option, to grow modestly. Crandall noted that the concept of "purchase rights" is a novel approach that will give American enormous flexibility with its future fleet plans. Traditional options had to be exercised 24 to 36 months prior to delivery, and once this advance time had passed, the options expired. "Purchase rights" work differently: subject to the availability of delivery positions, some of which are guaranteed, American will have the right to acquire, at specified prices, new standard-body aircraft with as little as 15 months' prior notice; wide-bodied acquisitions will require 18 months' notice. Moreover, American will be able to choose which planes in each category -- 777, 767, 757, and 737 -- best meets its needs. "This flexibility is a key element of the agreement," said Crandall. "Boeing has come forward with a uniquely creative solution, which directly addresses the many uncertainties that exist in fleet planning. The agreement will enable us to acquire the aircraft we need while avoiding the need to make larger firm commitments, thus preserving the strength of our balance sheet." American is currently negotiating with manufacturers for engines to power the 777s. The 757s and 767s, which are already an important part of American's fleet, will have Rolls Royce and General Electric engines, respectively. The 737s will have engines from CFM, a joint venture between General Electric and Snecma of France. "We are delighted with American's decision to select us as their airplane supplier for the next 20 years," said Ron Woodard, president of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. "This partnership is based on a 40-year-long relationship and is a tremendous vote of confidence from an airline that is recognized around the world as a premier carrier. This decision is particularly meaningful for us because American has had the opportunity to operate our competitors' airplanes, and ultimately the airline chose Boeing airplanes for the value they provide." "This new agreement reflects our confidence that American's employees will use these new aircraft to produce the best customer service in the industry, thus validating this investment," said Crandall. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:05 From: avcomlab@mac.express.co.nz (Neil J. Bartlett) Subject: Re: Ansett NZ 1995 DH8 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hephzibah Enterprises ltd In article , Peter Dowden wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, michael keenan wrote: > > > > > > I don't know anything about this crash. Do you have any information on the > > circumstances? > > No! :-) > I don't have much memory of the exact details, Flight attendant and three pax died, One pax from post-crash burns when he was caught in a short lived flash fire near an engine while assisting others to get out of aircraft. TAIC accident report is held up due the CVR court case (NZ ALPA won an injuction stopping release of transcript, and TAIC refuseing to publish Acc Report without the transcript). Newspapers at the time reported that U/carrage failure was reported by pax and may have distracted pilots. A/c hit ground at about 6 nm from runway 25 (a new VOR approach since you were in NZ Michael) and while in cloud. From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:05 From: gugerell@ping.at (Peter Gugerell) Subject: Re: Break the VSI? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of PING - Personal InterNet Gate Reply-To: gugerell@ping.at midibu@hsv.mindspring.com (MiDiBu) wrote: | One of the oldest tricks that a pilot learns is that if the static | ports are clogged up, one breaks the glass on the vertical speed | indicator (VSI). Before you see the problem with this I would like to | address two things: | | ... | | But, the reason that I'm posting this is - Could the pilots of a 757 | break the glass on the pitot/static instruments and undo the damage | done by the ground crew/bad walkaround? | | Mike Weller Hi Mike, Yes, they could break the glass. No, it wouldn't help. There are no conventional barometric instruments on most modern jet aircraft. The data from the static ports and the ram air probes goes into an "air data computer". This computer provides an electrical signal that drives the instruments. The altimeter and the VSI are not self-contained instruments; they only display computer-generated data. Peter P e t e r G u g e r e l l --- V i e n n a, A u s t r i a ---------------- gugerell@ping.at ---------------- From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:05 From: s_odle@earthlink.net (Scott Odle) Subject: Re: Stage 3 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. In article , malc@deltanet.com says... >As far as I recall, British Airways and Air France gained TCAS >implementation extensions (not exemptions) for their Concordes. I believe your right, however, as I remember, they received this only due to the fact no TCAS antenna has yet to be produced that is capable of withstanding the extreme enviromental conditions associated with Mach 2 flight. This arguement cannot be made for any other aircraft. From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:05 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: American to place order for 100 or more Boeing planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) shaped the electrons to say: >for 100 or more Boeing planes. The article says the order will >consist of 12 777s, 75 737s, and a small number of 757s and 767s, I wonder if any of the 777s will have the folding wings American was so insistant on in design. ;-) -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: Ed Hahn Subject: GPS Implementation (was Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. I hate to take up so much space with all my comments, but here goes. jlund@aztec.asu.edu (JAMES H. LUND) writes: > I've been reading all the usual excuses, but no real reason why the > good old USA, where GPS was invented, still do not have GPS equipment > in most commercial aircraft, even for use as a back-up. Why not > consider a few reasons for installation? > Reason 1: GPS also provides reliable information on altitude and speed, > and makes an extremely useful back up, even when not being used for the > primary navigation device. They often also include a memory database > to warn of infringement of restricted airspace, and emergency features > to give you quick reference to alternate airports including distance, > direction, etc. One thing: GPS is NOT very accurate in altitude. With SA on and no differential corrections, the 2-sigma accuracy is 156 meters, or about 500 feet. With differential, that goes into the neighborhood of 10 meters (30 feet). Certainly not better than baro instruments. Unaugmented, it's not even good enough for following an ATC clearance. The navigation data base is not part of GPS; the FMS already has one. Also, since an airliner is always going to be on an IFR clearance, separation from restricted airspace is ATC's job. Finally, none of these secondary features would be useful in normal circumstances. While many of the Nav Data Base features *might* be useful in an emergency, it's really separate from implementing GPS itself. > Reason 2: Many of the newer GPS units also have a battery built in, > which means the system can operate completely independent of all the > aircraft systems. No real argument here, except that TOTAL electrical failures, including the essential (battery) busses, don't happen that often - anyone aware of such? > Reason 3: The price of FAA certified GPS receivers is not that high. > Even when certified for IFR enroute navigation. Actually, you *would* need a high dollar unit because the FAA certification requirements for equipment going into transport category aircraft are much more stringent than for GA. As a "licensed FAA inspector", I'm sure you are aware of this. ADF is a requirement to fly NDB approaches (even if no one likes to fly them). Line pilots still gotta fly an NDB during recurrent training, and it's still FAA required equipment for Part 121 guys. > Reason 4: As an FAA licensed pilot, aircraft mechanic and inspector, I > can assure you that installation costs for GPS are not all that high. > Especially when they do not need to be integrated into the FMS, EFIS, > etc. Total integration of all the instrument systems may be more > convenient when everything is working; unfortunately people are dying > in the process of discovering that our near perfect aircraft still > malfunction occasionally. OK, one argument: would you give up your HSI because you wanted the CDI and DG to be separate in case of failure? Especially if you had a completely independent spare HSI, VOR receiver, and DG flying with you? I don't buy your arguments, but think about it from this angle: What additional benefit would the GPS unit provide over and above existing aircraft systems, especially if none of the other systems can take advantage of the increased accuracy of GPS? How would you train the pilots when to revert to a totally independent system in an emergency? > Reason 5: Some third world countries have already adopted GPS as a > standard enroute navigation device. Several of them have made it > mandatory. While most are not certified for precision approaches, > it is highly reliable and accurate for navigation. I'm not aware of a single foreign country which has made GPS *mandatory*; please enlighten us. > So, why is GPS installation is considered too expensive? Just how > many aircraft could be equipped for the price of 1 Boeing 757 aircraft > lost recently due to malfunctioning cockpit EFIS systems? Which aircraft would that be? 1) Dominican Republic - it appears the cause was a blocked pitot or static port was the contributing factor, and the crew's inability to function in the abnormal environment the primary cause. 2) Cali, Columbia - all instruments were reported to be functional when the aircraft hit the mountain. 3) Peru - preliminary reports place a likely factor as a taped-over static port, which would make all baro instruments (including standbys) unusable. Explain which of these accidents would have been avoided with a GPS on board, and exactly how? Especially GPS not "integrated into the FMS, EFIS, etc." While I certainly am an advocate of GPS technology, there are still many *REAL* technical and institutional issues to be worked out in its implementation. Many of these issues require government action and are not decisions that the airlines can make on an ad-hoc basis. It makes *NO* sense for an airline to adopt a limited-capability system now, when they may need to replace it in a couple of years with a full-capability system. Enough for now, Ed Hahn From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: geert@panix.com (Geert K. Marien) Subject: Re: mid-air collision near Delhi References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : Aug 12, 1985 - JAL 747 crashed into Mt. Ogura after failure of : aft pressure bulkhead and substantial collateral damage to the : tail; 520 killed. : : Despite being the second worst crash on record, there were a few : (three?) survivors of the JAL crash. I believe one survivor: a (then) little girl, perhaps 7 years old, certainly not older than that. I assume the video was on and the people in the plane saw what was coming ... Geert K. Marien : geert@PANIX.COM ListOwner: AIRLINE, RAILROAD, STAMPS, The INDIA List (All contents are my own opinions - unless otherwise stated) Watch EastEnders - The Soap Opera for REAL People! From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Source: AMR Agrees to Buy Boeing Jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex C-reuters@clari.net (Reuters) writes: > American is the largest operator of McDonnell Douglas' >narrowbody MD-80 jets, with some 260 airplanes, but relations >between the two companies soured when the larger MD-11 model >failed to meet initial performance standards, analysts said. What *IS* the outcome on the DC...oops MD-11? Last I heard, MD was paying for a mid-flight fuel stop or such? From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: American to place order for 100 or more Boeing planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Karl Swartz wrote: >The article interprets this as an indication that AA has decided >that their 260 MD-80s will eventually be replaced with 737s. Wow. I wonder if this means that there will be NO American MD-90s? Frankly, I was surprised that I didn't see American with MD-90s already, given the size of their MD-8x fleet. I've lost track recently, how well is the MD-90 doing, both in terms of sales and in terms of service? My last datapoint was a discussion here after I got stuck in DFW till the wee hours of the morning because *2* Delta MD-90's were unable to depart for my flight due to mechanical trouble. A third one got me home at 4 AM... -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: American to place order for 100 or more Boeing planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>The article interprets this as an indication that AA has decided >>that their 260 MD-80s will eventually be replaced with 737s. >Wow. I wonder if this means that there will be NO American MD-90s? According to AA's press release, "Boeing will become the exclusive supplier of jet aircraft to American ... through the year 2018." That means no MD-90s for AA unless they start buying them 22 years from now. Not likely. It also means most of the MD-80 fleet will sooner or later be replaced with 737s, unless AA either keeps the MD-80s until they're pretty ancient or AA exits the airline biz. The Fokkers reportedly will also be replaced with 737s, though the jump above 100 seats requires a third flight attendant. Reports that AA will become an all-Boeing airline aren't quite true, as it appears they plan on keeping the 35 A300-600Rs. No more will be added, however. Airbus reportedly is furious that they did not even get a chance to submit a bid to AA. Apparently a shareholder suit is also brewing since AA permitted no competition to drive the price down. >I've lost track recently, how well is the MD-90 doing, both in terms of >sales and in terms of service? Take a look at Andrew Chuang's aircraft order update pages, starting at http://www.cris.com/~Chuanga/. The MD-80/90/95 series is lumped together, but you can easily identify the MD-90 order because they're the only ones with IAE engines. (MD-80s have Pratt and Whitneys and MD-95s have BMW/Rolls-Royce.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article Adam Dobrzycki writes: >I recall hearing somewhere that, unlike later -300 and up versions, the >737-200 has to have all wheels on the ground (front too) for the thrust >reversers to be activated, simply because there is a possibilty of the >reversers touching the runway when the front wheel is still up. > >Could anyone verify that? The Fall 1988 issue of Airliners magazine has a landing photo (p30) of an Air Malta 737-2K2C with reversers deployed and the nosewheel still about 3 to 4ft in the air. Unless the airplane is in the middle of a real gnarly bounce, it looks like only the mains need to to be down. regards Brian From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: "john r." Subject: TWA - Iranian freighter similarities ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In the late 70,s an Iranian military freighter on descent over Spain came apart in a storm. The a/c was ex TWA and converted. As I remember the accident was attributed to a tank explosion with wide cut fuel being a probable cause of ignition in an electric storm. Has anyone more info ? I was an avionics mechanic in overhaul then and for a long time we were doing mods on the wiring of the fuel pumps and tank wiring, so I think some design re assessment was done. -- john relph From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: rcarpen@lan2wan.com (Robert Carpenter) Subject: American Eagle using GPS as Primary Nav Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via CAIS Internet Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org Looking at the American Airlines web pages I found a press release which says that American Eagle will serve St Vincent nonstop from SJU using an ATR-42. They say this is possible since they will use GPS for navigation, reducing the block time to 1:58 from the otherwise 2:20. They also say they intend to serve Tobago similarly. Is this a first? Are there different rules for operators from Puerto Rico? Specifically, I've noted that some of Eagle's (Executive Airlines) planes based at SJU had French, not US, registration. Perhaps this is symmetry, since I've seen Air France planes (747, 737) with US, not French registration. One thing that bothers me about Eagle flights from SJU is that they are predominantly over water and they don't carry life jackets, etc. While there may always be an island within 20-30 minutes flight, some don't have airports that can handle an ATR. Fill me in .... Bob Carpenter rcarpen@Lan2Wan.com From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Stage 3 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In Malcolm Weir writes: > >Scott Odle wrote: >> Why should the requirements change simply because some airline failed to plan >> ahead? The same thing happened with TCAS and also happens from time to time >> with ADs. For noise and TCAS there was plenty of notice and a phase in process >> (by the percentage of aircraft in your airline). Many either did not realize >> or choose to ignore the impending deadlines. Maybe in the hope that the >> deadlines would be extended. When the deadlines came near many asked for >> exemptions, and as far as I know all were denied as far as TCAS was concerned. > >As far as I recall, British Airways and Air France gained TCAS >implementation extensions (not exemptions) for their Concordes. They got extensions because they discovered - after installing the first ones - that the antennas used on the subsonic planes could not take it. Chelton in England had to design a new, much largeer, more streamlined antenna. There was no other choice. RD From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:06 From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) Subject: Re: Desert airliner storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article Bob Immel writes: >I recently moved to Phoenix, Arizona, and was wondering where these big >"aircraft parking lots" I here about are in the Desert. I've heard that >they are somewhere between Phoenix and Tuscon. Does anyone know exactly >where they are in Arizona, and if they are open to the public? I've >also heard there is an aircraft museum in Tuscon...can anyone give >additional info on that. Thanks! The major storage facility is Pinal Airpark near Marana. It is signposted off I-10 between Eloy and Tucson. This is a private facility operated by Evergreen. Once upon a time, tours were available with just a phone call, but I believe this is no longer the case. I had no luck on my last visit. Close by is Avra Valley (off I-10 at Rillito). Some retired fire bomber DC-4s are stored here along with a few other Convairs and C-119s. Two Constellations are also based here. Nearer Phoenix is Memorial Field, Chandler (actually it's closer to Ocotillo than Chandler). This is the base of T & G, and there are some DC-4s and DC-7s out to pasture. Further afield, Kingman (NW Arizona) is home to many, many stored BAe Jetstreams and a few other types including (Oct 96) about a dozen ValuJet DC-9s. The Pima Air Museum is on Valencia Road east of Tucson, right across from Davis-Monthan AMARC. Certainly worth a visit. Hope this helps.. Brian From kls Fri Nov 22 05:48:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 96 05:48:07 From: Ed Hahn Subject: Vertical Speed Measurement (was Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. "David G. Davidson" writes: > After looking this is up again I see this going to require somemore > research. > > The ADCs feed: > > Altitude, Altitude Rate, True Airspeed > > to the IRS. The IRS in turn outputs: > > Attitude, Mag Heading, Vertical Speed, Angular Rates, Linear > Acceleration > > Present Position, True Heading, Ground Track Vector, Wind Vector > > Whether the IRS uses any of the ADC info to calculate VS is unclear. The > IRS should certainly be able to figure it out using the accelerometers. > I do know that we've never fixed a VSI problem by changing the ADC, only > the IRS has fixed this. I'm only talking about 757/767 here. The IRS is unable to give an accurate position OR speed in the *vertical* dimension due to an effect called the "Gravitational Gradient". (See Appendix below.) Therefore, the primary source of VS information will always be the static system. So why feed the info through the IRS? The Air Data Computers measure Altitude Rate one of two ways: 1) by taking the change-in-altitude over successive readings and dividing by the change-in-time during those readings, or 2) by looking at the flow rate in and out of the static system via a number of complex mechanical/pneumatic devices. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the altitude rate measurement in EITHER case, the Altitude Rate will ALWAYS lag behind the actual aircraft motion. Now then, the reason the IRS supplies the Vertical Speed (VS) is that, while the vertical accelerometer CANNOT provide raw VS output, it CAN provide enough of a "smoothing" signal to the Altitude Rate signal to allow the cockpit instrument to not lag behind the aircraft. (See Appendix below.) Note that the cockpit instrument is most properly known as the "Inertial-lead Vertical Speed Indicator", but is more commonly known as the "Instantaneous Vertical Speed Indicator". Hope this helps, Ed Hahn Appendix: So what's the Gravitational Gradient? Recall that the IRS uses a set of three accelerometers (one on each axis) and three gyros to generate all of its information. Basically, the IRS uses the three accelerometers to determine linear changes in motion, and uses the three gyros to measure rotational changes (i.e. attitude changes). Normally, you cannot build a device which measures linear speed directly - Newton figured out a long time ago that any unaccelerated motion feels identical - in other words, you can't tell without looking at an external reference point whether you are standing still or moving at hundreds of miles per hour, as long as you don't change speed or direction. However, accelerometers use the basic physics principle relating acceration, velocity, and position. In other words, if you take the accelerometer's reading and integrate it once, you get the velocity. If you integrate that velocity once more, you get the position. Of course, you have to worry about constants - but the alignment procedure takes care of that. (The gyros, on the other hand, don't have this limitation because motion in a rotating frame is easily detectable. The gyros can measure rotation rate directly.) Unfortunately, while this works great for the two accelerometers in the horizontal plane, the vertical axis has a problem: in steady level flight, the vertical accelerometer will still experience gravitational accelertion (~1g). However, again thanks to Newton (and Einstein), we know that the acceleration due to gravity falls off as the aircraft climbs higher (f = Gmm'/r^2). There is, in other words, a *gradient* to the gravitational acceleration with altitude. So, if a small bias (error) exists in the vertical accelerometer output, the IRS cannot tell whether this is due to the aircraft changing altitude within the gravitational gradient, or whether this is just a problem in the signal. This leads to divergent behavior of the output. For example: 1) say the bias makes the accelerometer read slightly high (i.e. indicating a slightly greater vertical acceleration from gravity than is really present). 2) Since the IRS cannot detect this, it assumes the aircraft is accelerating upwards slightly (i.e. climbing). 3) Because the aircraft is moving away from the center of the earth, the IRS then *must* assume that the acceleration due to gravity should also decrease. (The effect of the gravitational gradient.) 4) But the accelerometer output hasn't changed because it really hasn't moved vertically. 5) Since the output is the same, the IRS must assume that there is an additional real acceleration in the aircraft upwards. This cycle (2-5) continues until the velocity and position solutions blow-up divergently. Note that if the bias was in the other direction, the solutions would still diverge, but in a downward direction. Since you can't build a perfect accelerometer, you're out of luck. This effect is why barometric altitude rate is always the source of the source of vertical speed, and is only smoothed by the IRS to respond more quickly (i.e. you can use the presence of a change in vertical acceleration to deflect the IVSI needle ahead of time, countering the lag inherent in the baro system.). From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:21 From: "Bernie Gracy, Jr." Subject: 737: Take-off without flaps? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services In September 1993, I was on a USAir 737-200 departing from Bradley International to BWI. When it was announced that we were number 1 for takeoff and the engines were throttling up, I noticed the flaps weren't down. I alerted the flight attendant, who alerted the captain via the cabin phone, who then put down the flaps as we began to roll down the runway! Can a 737 take off without flaps down? The captain claimed we were in no danger. What is proper procedure? Aren't the flaps supposed to come down after pushback and engine start but before reaching the taxiway? Thanks for your help. This has weighed heavily on my mind for 3 years. Bernie Gracy From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:21 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: STHOOTP Statistics References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl I previously posted a request for reports of STHOOTP ("Scare The Heck Out Of The Passengers") incidents. I received 10 replies, of which 9 were useable (one did not report total number of flights). Bear in mind that this is an unscientific survey. One person, for example, included flights from the 1950's. In addition, there was variablity in just what was considered frightening. In all cases I took the reports as given, that is: if it was reported as frightening I recorded it as such. For what they are worth, the data (including my own estimate) are as follows: Flights Incidents Percentage 592 3 0.51 170 3 1.76 200 0 0.00 600 2 0.33 200 1 0.50 1300 2 0.15 100 1 1.00 50 0 0.00 45 0 0.00 2600 5 0.19 In total, 17 STHOOTP incidents were reported in an estimated 5857 flight for an overall incidence of about 0.3 percent. The breakdown of incidents is as follows: turbulence: 10 wake vortex encounter: 1 sudden maneuvering: 2 lightning strike: 1 aborted landing: 1 sudden unexpected zero-zero landing: 1 electrical failure: 1 What do we conclude? Hard to say, but I think the following observations are reasonable: 1. STHOOTP incidents are infrequent, but not rare. The average flyer is likely to experience at least one frightening incident during their lifetime. 2. Turbulence is the most common cause. I welcome any further reports from readers. From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:21 From: almcf@mitre.org (Al McFarland) Subject: Re: Desert airliner storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , immel@earthlink.net wrote: > I recently moved to Phoenix, Arizona, and was wondering where these big > "aircraft parking lots" I here about are in the Desert. I've heard that > they are somewhere between Phoenix and Tuscon. Does anyone know exactly > where they are in Arizona, and if they are open to the public? I've > also heard there is an aircraft museum in Tuscon...can anyone give > additional info on that. Thanks! A number of years ago, the Air Force stored a lot of aircraft at Davis Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson. I was stationed there for four months upgrading to the F-4. I remember mostly post WWII aircraft - B-47s, B-57s, maybe B-58, F-84, F-86 types. By now I would guess that some of those F-4s I used to fly are probably there in storage, too. I don't remember that the area was open to the public, but the impressive numbers of aircraft were visible from the public roads around the perimeter of the base. I am not aware of a comparable storage area for civil aircraft. From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:21 From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: Desert airliner storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Bob Immel wrote: > I recently moved to Phoenix, Arizona, and was wondering where these big > "aircraft parking lots" I here about are in the Desert. I've heard that > they are somewhere between Phoenix and Tuscon. Does anyone know exactly > where they are in Arizona, and if they are open to the public? Head south towards Tucson. On your right, you'll see the Marana air park. You won't get anywhere near it though, unless you work for an airline that has an aircraft stored there. They keep a tight lid on security. Keep going, and you'll reach Tucson, which has a number of facilities scattered about, including the giant military storage facility (which also contains oodles of 707s used in the KC-135E re-engining program. I believe there are tours available. > I've also heard there is an aircraft museum in Tuscon...can anyone give > additional info on that. Thanks! That's the Pima Air Museum, on the left before you reach Tucson itself. I seem to recall that there are signs. In any case, I remember having no problem finding it. Stefano From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:22 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible caus References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , agtabby@aol.com says... >I own a gps that costs 300 bucks, and can display location, speed, and >altitude with reasonalbe accuracy. Is every airliner equiped with a gps >now, and if so why not? There are problems with GPS - even for the equipment that is fitted to transport aircraft. There are 'holes' in GPS coverage that move around the world (including the US), so you can't guarantee accuracy - although you can predict where the holes are. Another problem is that the NAVSTAR (and the GLONASS) failure rate is too big, and you don't know when you have big errors and when you don't. These are military systems, and the integrity and continuity requirements that are applied to civil aeronautical systems were not taken into account during development. Augmentation systems such as WAAS, LAAS and EGNOS will help solve this problem. The position data for the country over which you are flying has to be available in co-ordinates referenced to a 'shape' of the Earth called WGS84 - otherwise GPS says you are in one place but looking out of the window tells you something else! States have a legal duty to supply aero-navigational data within their own airspace. With ground-based systems, a State can avoid liability problems by ensuring the safety of the system that they provide. With GPS, only Russia and the US can control the safety (or otherwise!) of the system - everyone else has to rely on them to do the decent thing! This is by no means an exhaustive list why GPS isn't present in all aircraft, but it gives an idea of some of the main problems. You can probably find out more from the NAS Architecture Home Page: http://asd.orlab.faa.gov Regards Alex. McLellan (not speaking for Eurocontrol) All these problems are soluble, and work is going on to solve them. But until they are solved, GPS won't be certified for 'sole means' navigation for all phases of flight. From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:23 From: dswisher@mcfly.sanders.lockheed.com (Douglas Swisher) Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > Praxis - Bjxrn Erling Flxtten wrote: > > > However, theory aside, isn't it amazing that modern aircraft with all > > this technology is not equipped with a sensor to check for obstructed > > static and / or dynamic ports? > > The 757/767 does display ground speed on the EADI and wind speed and > direction on the EHSI. These numbers come from the IRS. > > Seems like this information (along with pitch attitude and vertical > speed) should be enough to keep you out of harms way. > > BTW- VS also comes from the IRS on the 757/767. If I am not mistaken the wind speed is in essence derived from the vector operation of the difference between the true airspeed vector and the ground speed vector. True airspeed is derived from the calibrated airspeed, heading and outside air temperature. Only ground speed comes from the IRS. There is an inertial vertical speed in the IRS but I would guess that the vertical speed displayed in a vertical speed indicator is the pressure altitude rate of change, since you fly pressure altitude. So in this case ground speed is accurate as well as the inertial vertical speed, but all your information concerning the airspeed and wind speed is derived in part from your static pressure. From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:23 From: Jason Casey Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GEC-Marconi If a plane crash is caused by something more than twice, then surely it is more likely to happen again, and some preventative measure should be taken to ensure that it doesn't (in fact, I believe that in America, this ruling already applies to cars). It sounds to me like the cause of the peruvian crash could have been avoided by the maintenance crew of the plane having a checklist to ensure that any 'tape' be removed after maintenance, and then that plane not released for flight until the checklists have been completed correctly. It doesn't always take some complicated piece of electronics to make things safer. -- My opinions are my own, and do not represent the views of my company. Jason Casey Currently with G-MAv From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:23 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 03:02 AM 11/21/96, you wrote: >I've been reading all the usual excuses, but no real reason why the >good old USA, where GPS was invented, still do not have GPS equipment >in most commercial aircraft, even for use as a back-up. Why not >consider a few reasons for installation? These are all good points and many people agree with you. However, it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be. The qualification testing and certification of the airline equipment is expensive and results in a good price for the equipment. Installing it in the airplane requires the airplane to be out of action for a costly period and then you have to train your pilots to use it correctly. This usually adds up to some bean counter saying....we have got along without it for all this time so why do we need it now? I don't think any of the recent accidents would have been prevented with a GPS on board. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:23 From: ethan@cs.wisc.edu Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison Reply-To: ebrodsky@pobox.com In article , Jonathan Griffitts wrote: >I've been lurking, waiting to see any more information on the Peruvian >757 crash a couple of weeks ago. All I've seen so far is very sketchy >and self-contradictory information from the newspaper. >... >This sounds like it COULD be the ultimate glass-cockpit horror story: >they suffered an electrical or electronic failure that was so complete >that it left the plane uncontrollable. Is this is the event that the >glass-cockpit opponents have been predicting? Speaking of problems with glass cockpits, I was looking through the NTSB database at http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/months.htm (someone I know had a C182 engine blow up and I wanted to see if it was listed) and found this: : NTSB Identification: NYC96IA116 : : Scheduled 14 CFR 129 operation of MARTINAIR HOLLAND (D.B.A. MARTINAIR) : Incident occurred MAY-28-96 at BOSTON, MA : Aircraft: Boeing 767-31AER, registration: PHMCH : Injuries: 202 Uninjured. : : On May 28, 1996, at 1421 eastern daylight time, a Boeing 767-31AER, : PH-MCH, operated by Martinair Holland, as flight 631 received minor : damage during an unscheduled landing at Logan Airport, Boston, : Massachusetts. There were no injuries to the occupants, and visual : meteorological conditions prevailed. The flight which was destined for : Orlando, Florida, had departed Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam, The : Netherlands, at 0649, and was operated under 14 CFR 129. The flight : crew reported that they had received several false system advisories : during the flight. The advisories would appear and then disappear : shortly thereafter, with no corrective action being taken. There was : no evidence that the actual airplane systems were being affected. : These advisories started shortly after the airplane had reached cruise : altitude, and continued at an intermittent rate throughout the flight. : In addition there were multiple uncommanded disconnects of the : auto-pilot. The transponder code window would suddenly display all : zeros, and there were changes to the zero fuel weight information : displayed on the EFIS. At one time, the airplane flew for about one : hour with no problems noted. At 1355, when the airplane was about 20 : nm miles north of the Kennebunk VOR, Maine, the flight crew declared : an emergency due to loss of the EFIS cockpit displays and the inertial : navigation units, and requested to land at Boston. The flight crew : extended the wing leading edge slats, and received a split slat : indication. After checking that the available runway length was : adequate, for their configuration and weight, they decided not to : extend the wing flaps for landing. The spoilers were armed; however, : after touchdown, the flight crew had to manually extend the spoilers, : and was unable to engage the reverse thrust. During the ground roll, : all main landing gear tires were deflated. Four tires were deflated : due to locked brakes, and four tires were deflated due to melted fuse : plugs. The passengers were then deplaned with the aid of stairs. The : flight crew reported that they were not aware that the thrust : reversers, and anti-skid were inoperative, or that they would have to : manually deploy the spoilers, and that when deployed, only the flight : spoilers would be available. According to a representative from : Boeing, the fail safe mode for the air/ground circuitry was the air : mode. Once failed, there was no inflight reset capability. The : following systems were affected when the air/ground circuitry failed : to the air mode: Thrust reversers - Inoperative Engine Idle - Remained : at flight idle, did not go to ground idle Spoiler deployment - Flight : spoilers only, ground spoilers not available, manual deployment only, : no auto-deployment. Auto-braking - Not available Anti-skid - Partial : availability The failure of the air/ground logic circuit to the air : mode was displayed on the maintenance status page of the EICAS. It was : not displayed as a warning, caution, or advisory. There were no : messages that the individual systems were either inoperative or : working with degraded performance. The airplane was examined and : ground runs were made with the electrical system in both the ground : mode, and flight mode. The failures have not been reproduced. On June : 2, 1996, the airplane was moved to the Boeing plant, in Everett, : Washington, for continuation of the investigation. No anomalies were : reported from the flight. Although, in this case, the computers aren't directly controlling the airplane, the failure seems to have affected enough of the systems to have almost caused an accident. I'd done some programming and I know how easy it is to have your program mistakenly switch into the wrong "mode" under strange circumstances. I guess it's good that the system put out some warnings of incorrect behavior, but, since they were unrelated to the real problem, it didn't help the pilots that much. I'm not trying to stir up the FBW or software design wars again, but what something like this happens and there is no off switch? Ethan Brodsky -- Ethan Brodsky From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:23 From: Adam Dobrzycki Subject: Thrust reversers [Was: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) writes: => The Fall 1988 issue of Airliners magazine has a landing photo (p30) of => an Air Malta 737-2K2C with reversers deployed and the nosewheel still => about 3 to 4ft in the air. Unless the airplane is in the middle of a => real gnarly bounce, it looks like only the mains need to to be down. I would like to followup on that particular issue. The question is: when did the necessity of wheels being on the ground in order to allow activating the reversers become a common thing? Did 707s/DC-8s etc. have that, too? I have a picture, taken in mid-1970s, of a landing Iliushin 62, still in the air and before the runway, but with the reversers clearly deployed. I wonder whether it was also possible on Western planes built in the same era (late 1950s - early-mid 1960s). Adam ======================================================================== Adam Dobrzycki AXAF Science Center adam@head-cfa.harvard.edu Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ======================================================================== From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:24 From: daniel lance herrick Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Allen-Bradley Company JAMES H. LUND wrote: > I've been reading all the usual excuses, but no real reason why the > good old USA, where GPS was invented, still do not have GPS equipment > in most commercial aircraft, even for use as a back-up. Why not > consider a few reasons for installation? [...] > Reason 3: The price of FAA certified GPS receivers is not that high. > Even when certified for IFR enroute navigation. Many general aviation > aircraft have FAA certified GPS on board and are doing away with the > ADF, Loran and other equipment. This frightens me. The current sunspot cycle will hit its maximum somewhere around the year 2000. ADF and Loran have worked through previous sunspot maxima when pilots were still proficient with other, more primitive, navigation devices. Some of the things I read here make me want to fly only with pilots who are curmudgeonly enough to learn to do a fix with a sextant and carry a sextant and tables in their flight bags. dan dlh@dlh.com From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:24 From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Adam Dobrzycki wrote: > "David G. Davidson" writes: > => As I recall, the incident involving the > => Piedmont 737 that went off the end of the runway and ended up against > => railroad tracks was very similar to the LH A320 in Warsaw. > > Pardon my ignorance, but I have never heard of this incident. When/where was > that? If this happened before the A320 crash in Warsaw, it would be amazing > that the logic preventing this type of accidents wasn't built into Airbus' > software... The Piedmont incident involved 737-222 N752N (msn19073) on 25 Oct 1896, at Charlotte. The problem was similar to that later experienced by the LH A320 at WAW: the safeguards built in to prevent inflight spoiler activation weren't met (on the 737, they involved either the main wheels spinning through at least a quarter revolution or some amount of pressure on the oleos) because the plane was hydroplaning on a wet runway. In this case, it wasn't a computer, it was just a simple link between microswitches on the gear and the spoiler activation mechanism. But the principle was the same. Now why, you ask, were measures to prevent this kind of accident not built into the A320 software? The problem is that the cause of these accidents is itself a safeguard against another kind of accident. You don't want spoilers (or thrust reversers) activating in flight. Several DC-8s were lost, for example, because of inadvertent spoiler activation in flight. So you build in measures to ensure this won't happen until you're on the runway. How do you know? As these accidents illustrate, there's no foolproof way. You try to find a middle ground between alternatives. And sometimes you get it wrong. Or you just get unlucky. I'm not sure what specific changes were made in the 737 and A320 (and perhaps other models) in response to these accidents, but I suspect that unless someone came up with something really clever, the result is probably a system that's a little less vulnerable to runway over-runs and a little more vulnerable to inadvertent in-flight spoiler deployment. Hopefully the combination of circumstances which will expose that higher vulnerability won't happen... too often. A final note: As I recall, there were no injuries in the Piedmont 737. At WAW, on the other hand, a ditch and a wall in the runway over-run area resulted in the aircraft breaking in two and catching fire, with 2 fatalities. That again is the luck of the draw. Stefano All opinions expressed are my own From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:24 From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: More on landing problems References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Continuing with the debate of landing problems due to safeguards preventing in-flight deployment of spoilers: In addition to the Piedmont 737 accident at Charlotte, there's also the USAir DC-9 accident at Erie, PA, on Feb 21, 1986 (DC-9-31 N961VJ). The aircraft landed on runway 24, which was covered with snow, with a quartering tailwind. Although armed, the spoilers did not auto-deploy. The Pilot's handbook for the DC-9 cautions crews to monitor spoilers when landing on slippery runways, since THE SPOILERS AUTO-DEPLOY ONLY WITH WHEEL SPIN-UP OR WHEN THE NOSE WHEEL IS ON THE GROUND. The pilot operated the spoilers manually, actuated reverse thrust, and lowered the nose, but was unable to stop on the runway. The aircraft over-ran the runway and was damaged beyond economic repair. Luckily, there was only 1 minor injury. So there you have it, all of you who thought only aircraft designed by state-subsidized European manufacturers with delusions of grandeur had such problems. Stefano All opinions expressed are my own From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:24 From: "john r." Subject: Re: evacuation... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , D S Graf writes >Regarding aircraft rotating during rear-door evacuation, > did you ever see the photo of the PanAm 747 which made > an emergency landing at SFO ? > > It had been unable to acheive a good climb rate on take off > and the result was a brush through the approach lights at > the reciprocal runway threshold. This damaged the tail and > severed some hydraulic lines. On landing the aircraft left > the runway and came to rest in the field at the centre of > the airport. I have a video of this, explaining the reason for the accident - given a runway from which it could not take off at high weight, being a Tokyo direct which was pushing it on an early 747. It flew for a couple of hours on one hydraulic system having lost 3 others, to reduce weight. The video shows the landing without flare due minimal pitch control, and rollout with wings still flapping from the initial bounce, then going off the runway which put out the gear fire. It is quite dramatic and the crew did well to hold it together. Then it sits in a cloud of dust and NOTHING happens for 60 seconds, communication problems, then the evac. starts. After the tip up a few unfortunates are seen going down the nose slide. As a result of this incident a dedicated evacuation warning system was fitted with units at each door. It is checked by the crew on each departure. -- john relph. From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:24 From: glenegnt@aol.com Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk The off centre nose wheel of the Boeing 737 was I guess designed like most aircraft of that age to stop the nose wheel hiting the runway centre line lights when lined up on the run both landing and taking off. From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:24 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: "Crooked 737s?" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The off centre nose wheel of the Boeing 737 was I guess designed like most >aircraft of that age to stop the nose wheel hiting the runway centre line >lights when lined up on the run both landing and taking off. Wouldn't it be easier to just line up a few inches to one side of the center line? In any case, the authoritative answer seems to be that the 737 does not have an off-center nose gear. Other than the Trident, what other "aircraft of that age" are you thinking of with an off-center nose gear? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:25 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 21 Nov 1996, shahid siddiqi wrote: > Peter Coe wrote: > > > On a supplemental thread, I vaguely recall that at the time of its entry > > into service, Concorde's engines were claimed to be the most effecient > > engine ever built - I presume in terms of thrust per pound of fuel. The > > plane isn't effecient overall, because it operates in such an ineffecient > > environment. > > Come come lets not get carried away - the laws of > Thermodynamics make this claim impossible. A > turbojet engine such as that of the Concorde can > never beat the fuel efficiency of a high by-pass > turbo fan such as the GE-90 or the Rolls Royce > Trent. The thrust specific fuel consumption in > cruise for the Olympus/SNECMA engine is most > probably in excess of 0.8 pounds per hour of fuel > per pound thrust produced as compared to 0.53 > pounds/hour per pound thrust produced by the GE-90. > (In afterburner it would be in excess of 1.4 and > thats why the Concorde doesn't cruise supersonic > with afterburners on it would drink all its fuel > before crossing the Atlantic). In order to compare the energy efficiency of the two types of engines you need to know the amount of fuel consumed by each engine and the amount of useful work done by each engine. The useful work done by a jet engine is the product of the thrust times the distance traveled (work equals force times distance). A pound of thrust at 600 miles per hour is producing useful work at the rate of (for convenience converting the speed to feet per second, in this case 880 fps) one pound of thrust times 880 fps equals 880 foot pounds per second, or 1.6 horsepower. At 1400 miles per hour (2050 fps) a pound of thrust produces 2050 foot pounds per second, or 3.7 horsepower. Using your figures, the energy efficiency of the GE-90 is 0.53 pounds of fuel per hour per 1.6 horsepower ( power of one pound of thrust at 600 mph), which is .33 pounds of fuel per horsepower hour ( quite a respectable figure). The energy efficiency of the Concorde's Olympus engines would be .8 pounds of fuel per hour per 3.7 horsepower (one pound of thrust at 1400 mph), which gives .22 pounds of thrust per horsepower hour, 50% better than the GE-90. The greater efficiency of the Concorde's engines comes from two factors. First, the engine exhaust is used for thrust directly, instead of being routed through turbine blades and then a fan, which, good as they are, are not 100% efficient. Obviously, the Concorde's exhaust nozzles are not 100% efficient either, but they're better than a fan and its drive, not surprising when you consider the extra moving parts. The GE-90 of course has the advantage of 25 years of progress in the design and materials of its compressors, combustors, turbine blades, controls, etc., but these same improvements would work just as well at supersonic speeds, and in fact the core of any modern turbofan could serve as the basis for a new SST engine if we ever decide to build such a thing, just as these cores now power planes, ships, pipelines and electrical plants. Second, and more important, the speed of the Concorde's jet efflux is a smaller multiple of its cruising speed than the corresponding figures for a subsonic fan-jet, giving the Concorde greater propulsive efficiency, the ratio of mechanical work produced by the engine to the useful work delivered as thrust horsepower to the vehicle. Propulsive efficiency equals 2/(1+R), where R is the ratio of jet efflux speed to aircraft speed. Think of an aircraft running up its engines with the brakes locked in a pre-flight check. Plenty of fuel burned, plenty of air set into motion, zero work done on the aircraft (you hope). Propulsive efficiency of a subsonic airliner is the one really obvious weak point of the system, hence the periodic interest in prop-fans, ultra-fans, Unducted Fans (TM), and other propulsors optimised for subsonic speeds. The figure I have is 40% thermal efficiency for the Concorde in converting chemical energy into thrust horsepower. A modern diesel ship may be better, but not by much. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:25 From: graemec@ibm.net Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net In , Michael Catchpole writes: >Rich Webb wrote: >> What is the top speed of Concorde, AND more importantly, can it maintain >> this speed (or any supersonic speed) without the aid of afterburners? > >Top speed of Concorde is about Mach 2 (1350mph approx). Reheat is not >required to maintain this speed. However it is required to get there (also >required for a short time on takeoff) Going back a long time to when a number of airlines were considering whether they would buy Concordes, I was involved in looking at some performance figures and my recollection is that the top speed of Concorde is quite variable. My memory is that it is certified to a Tmo, not Vmo or Mmo - and the figure is about 540K from memory - but that could be way out. The Mach number that results depends on the conditions on the day. The other quirk of its operating envelope that sticks in my mind was that it is well on the back of the drag curve for a significant part of the descent. I recall that if it was required to level out between about FL400 to FL350, it had to first accelerate before it reached a speed at which it could maintain level flight. I'm not sure of the descent speed but my recollection is of around 400kt IAS or a little better. Perhaps someone who drove or drives them knows the figures and the facts. Graeme Cant From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:25 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington In article , Charlie Whitaker wrote: >- During 'supercruise' the plane tends to gradually climb, so that on one >side of the Atlantic it is at, say, 50,000 feet, but by the time it is >across the ocean (about 2 hours later) it has climbed to around 60,000 >feet. This is known as 'cruise-climb.' I understand this is deliberate; as the plane lightens due to fuel burn, it can cruise higher while maintaining cruising speed; as long as the plane can stay in trim at the higher altitude, it needs less power to maintain speed and therefore uses less fuel. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:25 From: Bob Standaert Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas A&M University trussell@magmacom.com wrote: > > Larger vehicles ie: aircraft, ships, trucks have fewer problems that a > passenger car for using H2 because it's bulky. > > Planes and ships can use it with ease because the size of the fuel > tank is not as important but smaller vehicle such as a car currently > wouldn't have a trunk, it would be all tank and then some. > Bulk is a big problem (in addition to to the problems with cost, safety, and practicality of use). Hydrogen has a significant intrinsic limitation as a fuel: low energy to volume ratio. Hydrogen has more energy than jet fuel on a pound-for-pound basis, but not on a gallon-for-gallon basis. Here are some rough calculations; I have assumed that heat of combustion is the relevant point of comparison, that thermal efficiencies are equal, and that jet fuel can be approximated as a simple alkane hydrocarbon (I took the data for n-decane, but the exact compound doesn't matter much). The heat of combustion of decane (kerosene) is about 10,500 kcal/kg (18,900 btu/lb), and the heat of combustion of hydrogen is 28,700 kcal/kg (55,700 btu/lb), meaning the heat content per unit weight is 2.7 times larger for hydrogen. However, hydrogen is not very dense. The liquid (bp -253 C) has a density of 70 g/L, vs about 800 g/L for jet fuel; therefore, you would need 4.2 times as much liquid hydrogen by volume. The real ratio might need to be even higher, since combustion of hydrogen leads to a gas volume decrease (H2 + 1/2 O2 --> H2O) whereas combustion of a hydrocarbon leads to a substantial gas volume increase, which I assume translates into added thrust. Now, consider a 747-400. Its fuel capacity of 215,000 L (57,000 gal) corresponds to about 172,000 kg (378,000 lbs) of jet fuel; to get the same net heat of combustion (i.e., range) it would need only 63,000 kg of H2, but it would need an Olympic size, 900,000-liter (cryogenic) fuel tank to hold it all. A fuel cylinder the diameter of the cabin (20 ft) would need to be 77 ft long to carry the added volume. Alternatively, you could add a 200-ft long by 12-ft diameter hump. A spare 757 fuselage strapped on top as a fuel tank would hold less than 3/4 of the necessary extra capacity! In terms of airliner evolution, this one sounds like a dinosaur destined for quick extinction. Regards, Bob From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:25 From: lanierb@econ.yale.edu (Lanier Benkard) Subject: Re: End of airliner evolution? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Yale University Tim Russell (trussell@magmacom.com) wrote: : H2 powered jets are not new it was tested in the 50'a. : I read a quote that H2 was a "terrific fuel for turbines" : I expect that hydrogen will replace fossel fuels in the future : Let's see, you get it from water, when it burns the byproduct is water : do you see a benifit. Isn't H2 awfully explosive? Wouldn't that be an increased danger? Lanier ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lanier Benkard Department of Economics Yale University From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:26 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Source: AMR Agrees to Buy Boeing Jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA In article , wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: > C-reuters@clari.net (Reuters) writes: > > > American is the largest operator of McDonnell Douglas' > >narrowbody MD-80 jets, with some 260 airplanes, but relations > >between the two companies soured when the larger MD-11 model > >failed to meet initial performance standards, analysts said. > > What *IS* the outcome on the DC...oops MD-11? > > Last I heard, MD was paying for a mid-flight fuel stop > or such? American is phasing out it's wide body Douglas aircraft, indeed some of AA's "nonstop" Pacific flights actually included a fueling stop. The dc10-30 served AA well, but the MD11 just couldn't carry fuel, people and cargo all at once. In fact some of the MD11's are already gone, they are being leased or sold to Fed Ex. Besides what will those new 777's replace? -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Source: AMR Agrees to Buy Boeing Jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >American is phasing out it's wide body Douglas aircraft, indeed some of >AA's "nonstop" Pacific flights actually included a fueling stop. The >dc10-30 served AA well, but the MD11 just couldn't carry fuel, people and >cargo all at once. When AA started flying SJC-NRT, they made a technical stop across the bay at OAK. However, they started the service with the DC-10-30, and were weight-limited due to a relatively short main runway at SJC. I'm not sure if they still needed the stop once they put the MD-11s into service -- I think they did, at least some days -- but since San Jose lengthened the runway to the current 10,200', the flight really has been a non-stop. From my old office, I often watched it fly over Palo Alto and Menlo Park a little after 130p, flying its unusual departure, which was required by its high weight which wouldn't allow it to fly a normal departure from San Jose while turning and/or climbing enough to clear the mountains. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:26 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Kegworth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar > >The LCD display unit on that a/c has very small engine vibration > >indicators, less than an inch dimeter and more importantly there are no > >latching warnings to say when an engine vibs have gone over a pre set > >level. > > The Smiths Industries LCD center panel engine instrumentation *was* > implicated as an issue, as I recall. The MD-88 also has this LCD panel. It is difficult to read, even during something as mundane as an engine start. I'd hate to have to read when things are going wrong. From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:26 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Aloha accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 03:02 AM 11/21/96, you wrote: >Does anyone know where to find pics of the Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 >who lost some airframe structure in 1988? Try Aviation Week...they had a good article on it if I remember correctly. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:26 From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: Aloha accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Sten Lasu wrote: > Does anyone know where to find pics of the Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 > who lost some airframe structure in 1988? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now there's an understatement if ever I've seen one! AvWeek, Flight, Airliners, and probably other aviation magazines all had pics. So did the newsweeklies, so if your local public library stores Time or Newsweek that far back, that's probably your easiest source. Stefano From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:26 From: dswisher@mcfly.sanders.lockheed.com (Douglas Swisher) Subject: Re: Break the VSI? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Just in the vain of talking about alternate sources of airspeed, it occurred to me that there is are two sources of static pressure on the 757 that were working correctly and that they might even have been on the data bus. I'm talking about the ambient pressure and total pressure at the engine inlet. Granted that these are influenced by engine speed, but I would imagine that corrections could be made on a properly functioning FADEC that would provide usable airspeed and altitude information. If I remember correctly it was FADEC non-volitile memory that was used to estimate the speed during the Air Lauda 767 accident. D. Swisher From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:27 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Break the VSI? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article gugerell@ping.at writes: >Yes, they could break the glass. No, it wouldn't help. There are no >conventional barometric instruments on most modern jet aircraft. The >data from the static ports and the ram air probes goes into an "air >data computer". This computer provides an electrical signal that >drives the instruments. The altimeter and the VSI are not self-contained >instruments; they only display computer-generated data. THe standby airspeed and altimeter on the 757 are connected directly to the pitot-static system. The regular instruments get their data from the ADC. This is not to imply that going around smashing these instruments would be a wise or feasible procedure, for many reasons. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:27 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: New Delhi collision and call for transponders Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom I have received the following second-hand: 1. The Saudi 747-100 was probably equipped with TCAS. 2. Soviet IFF/transponders cannot be seen by TCAS. 3. The FAA has put out a call for all surplus ATCRBS transponders that were removed for installation of mode S transponders. The intent is to provide them to operators of Russian-made aircraft. Airlines: dig out your surplus transponders and put them to good use. RD From kls Sat Nov 23 03:36:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 03:36:27 From: "Hans Jakobsson" Subject: Import taxes when buying an airliner? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AlgoNet Public Access Node, Stockholm Hello, one thing crossed my mind. When you buy, say a new 767, from Boeing you technically import it into your country. Aren't there customs and import taxes to be paid for such a procurement - and if so, does anyone know how much it is on 737-747-767 types of aircraft? Regards Hans Jakobsson -- Hans Jakobsson Qualiified Airliner Consultancy, Worldwide! e-mail: hansj@algonet.se www: http://www.algonet.se/~hansj/747/ From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:54 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: hijacked Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 767 crashes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California An Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 767-260(ER) crashed today off the Comoros Islands after being hijacked. Flight ET 961 had flown from Bombay, India (BOM/VABB) to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (ADD/HAAB), and was scheduled to continue to Nairobi, Kenya (NBO/HKNA), Brazzaville, Congo (BZV/FCBB), Lagos, Nigeria (LOS/DNLL), and finally Abidjan, Ivory Coast (ABJ/DIAP). The flight was hijacked after departure from Addis Ababa early Saturday by three hijackers who demanded to be flown to Australia. After being told the plane only had enough fuel for a two hour flight, the flight circled over East Africa, according to the Ethiopian News Agency, before flying towards Mauritius where the hijackers intended to have the plane refueled before proceeding to Australia. The plane apparently ran out of fuel and crashed into the Indian Ocean 2 km short of the runway at Grande Comore Island, part of the four island Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros. It broke into two pieces, at least one of which was still afloat. Of the 178 passengers and crew aboard the flight (the plane's capacity was 186 passengers; a typical crew would probably be about 8-10), at least 50 survived, including one pilot and two of the three hijackers. Rescue efforts were difficult due to rough seas. http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=BOM-ADD-NBO,ADD-FIMP,FMCI is the URL for a map showing the first two legs of the scheduled flight plus the crash site and the intended path to Mauritius. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:55 From: frank247d@aol.com Subject: Re: Kathmandu Airport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com That airport needed some added people facilities when I was last there also; bathrooms eating facilities, reasonable waiting areas etc. There were cattle grazing just across a low fence also. Kathmandu is intersting but quite a cultural shock on the first visit. From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:55 From: Nicholas Hartmann Subject: Re: Desert airliner storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider > A number of years ago, the Air Force stored a lot of aircraft at Davis > Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson. I was stationed there for four months > upgrading to the F-4. I remember mostly post WWII aircraft - B-47s, > B-57s, maybe B-58, F-84, F-86 types. By now I would guess that some of > those F-4s I used to fly are probably there in storage, too. I don't > remember that the area was open to the public, but the impressive numbers > of aircraft were visible from the public roads around the perimeter of the > base. I am not aware of a comparable storage area for civil aircraft. There is such a storage area at Mojave airport in southern California, north of Los Angeles near Edwards Air Force Base. Anywhere from dozens to hundreds of mothballed commercial airliners can be seen from public roads around the airport (binoculars help). -- Nicholas Hartmann hartmann@interaccess.com P.O. Box 1005 73057.724@compuserve.com Oak Park, IL 60304 (708) 524-1191 USA fax (708) 524-1355 Technical and scientific translator: German, French, Italian -> English From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:55 From: JJBIVNG@HOTMAIL.COM (Joe J. Budion, IV) Subject: Re: 737: Take-off without flaps? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Budion Family Reply-To: JJBIVNG@HOTMAIL.COM Well, Probaly, but I would rather take off with flaps down, It get you up in the air faster, and if you are on a short runway, that is a necessaty. What do others think? Joe Our FedEx MD-11 was taking off from Memphis, TN (MEM) with a full load of cargo from the FedEx nightly sort, when "Bernie Gracy, Jr." keyed the mic and said: >Can a 737 take off without flaps down? The captain claimed we were in no >danger. What is proper procedure? Aren't the flaps supposed to come down >after pushback and engine start but before reaching the taxiway? -- Joe J. Budion, IV Sylvania, OH 43560 USA JJBIVNG@HOTMAIL.COM From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:55 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: 737: Take-off without flaps? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 23 Nov 1996, Bernie Gracy, Jr. wrote: > Can a 737 take off without flaps down? Yes, and years ago I knew someone who claimed to have done so - inadvertently, but with the mistake having been discovered before a premature rotation and lift-off (for the no-flap condition) was made. A hip-shot, "on-the-fly" additive was made to the Vr and V2 speeds, to compensate for the lower-than-standard lift provided by a clean wing - and fortunately it worked out just fine. > The captain claimed we were in no danger. A bit of a stretch, cf. the Delta 727 takeoff accident at DFW. However, the 737 may be more tolerant under such circumstances, and of course the takeoff warning system *should* have alerted the crew to the mis- configuration (this system failed due to switch misadjustment in the DFW accident). > What is proper procedure? There is no *proper* procedure, as far as I know - except perhaps for use by test pilots at Boeing. > Aren't the flaps supposed to come down > after pushback and engine start but before reaching the taxiway? The flaps are supposed to be manually *put* into the takeoff position, by the First Officer, normally right after engine start, but sometimes this is delayed due to ice or snow, or even ramp congestion. In either case, most operators' procedures call for *two* checks of flap position, once when they are actually moved, and again during a pre-takeoff confirmation of critical settings. If the Delta flight had had on board an alert "flap-watcher" like yourself, the accident very well may have been prevented. Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:55 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: 737: Take-off without flaps? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 03:36 AM 11/23/96, you wrote: >In September 1993, I was on a USAir 737-200 departing from Bradley >International to BWI. When it was announced that we were number 1 for >takeoff and the engines were throttling up, I noticed the flaps weren't >down. I alerted the flight attendant, who alerted the captain via the >cabin phone, who then put down the flaps as we began to roll down the >runway! > >Can a 737 take off without flaps down? The captain claimed we were in no >danger. What is proper procedure? Aren't the flaps supposed to come down >after pushback and engine start but before reaching the taxiway? =====>Bernie: It is common for the 737-200 to take off with a small Flaps 1 setting but uncommon for a flaps up takeoff. The pilot would have become aware of the flaps being up when he advanced the throttles as it should have sounded a horn in the cockpit...at which time he could safely lower the flaps. If he had launched the airplane into the air without flaps, it would probably not leave the ground until a higher than normal speed and the pilot could have nursed it along without much trouble...from takeoff to climb. I think you made a good catch...it pays to be observant! Just for your information...pilots are creatures of habit and when something interupts a habit pattern that which was changed may not be thought about again without some kind of special prompt. Normal procedures call for the flaps to be lowered during the taxi out for takeoff as you suggested. If there was an interuption for a radio call or something else...they may have passed this step up. Most airplanes have a "Takeoff Warning" feature that advises the pilot when he advances the thrust for takeoff that flaps are not set correctly, brakes may be on, elevator trim is not set right, or the spoilers are up. These are all easily corrected on the spot at the time. Fly in peace! Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:55 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Thrust reversers [Was: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 03:36 AM 11/23/96, Adam wrote: >BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) writes: > >=> The Fall 1988 issue of Airliners magazine has a landing photo (p30) of >=> an Air Malta 737-2K2C with reversers deployed and the nosewheel still >=> about 3 to 4ft in the air. Unless the airplane is in the middle of a >=> real gnarly bounce, it looks like only the mains need to to be down. > >I would like to followup on that particular issue. The question is: when did >the necessity of wheels being on the ground in order to allow activating the >reversers become a common thing? Did 707s/DC-8s etc. have that, too? I have a >picture, taken in mid-1970s, of a landing Iliushin 62, still in the air and >before the runway, but with the reversers clearly deployed. I wonder whether >it was also possible on Western planes built in the same era (late 1950s - >early-mid 1960s). ======Adam: This is a long and involved story! There have been several incidents and accidents involving the 737-100/200 airplanes in overrun violations. At one time a few years ago, a study of some 31 accidents/incidents showed that most of them involved long and fast touchdowns on slippery runways. In addition, late or no spoiler & thrust reverser deployments were factors...these were not due to system malfunctions. The original design (1968) involved a sensor on the nose gear and on the main gear. The logic provided the isolation valve in the open position for takeoffs and landings...however, the airplane was required to have the nose on the ground before the valve would open. This was to prevent inadvertant contact between the thrust reverser buckets and the runway at nose high attitudes on the ground. In situations where the airplane was landed fast, the pilots try to use aerodynamic braking to slow down...leaving the nose off the runway for a longer period. This is not a good idea and has proved to be detrimental to stopping the airplane...as thrust reversers will not deploy and brakes are less effective. This was later changed by deleting the nose gear sensor and leaving only the main gear requirement. (1973 and on airplanes). In 1979, after an accident which involved incomplete thrust reverser stowage prior to takeoff from a touch and go, an option was available to maintain full hydraulic power to the reversers until they were completely stowed...once they had been opened. Not many operators implemented this change option. In 1978/79 there was a complete FAA review of the 737 reverser/spoiler/brakes for logic and effectiveness. The airplane passed with flying colors and a suggested review of pilot procedures for landing on slick runways was made with several bulletins and briefings taking place. In 1989, the nose gear sensor was added back into the system, with the logic being either the main or the nose gear on the ground..(.In case of a real fast landing?)...and next came the enabling of the reversers through the radar altimeter system like it is on the 737-300. Now, there are airplanes out there in all kinds of configurations I would suspect. Most of them should have sensors on the main and nose gears with the "OR" logic invoked. Some may have the radar altimeter tie in. However, the following logic is fairly normal, I think: Spoilers: Auto flight-spoiler deployment when the wheels spin up (60 kts +) or the right main gear is compressed, thrust levers are at idle, and speedbrake lever is armed. Ground-spoilers will come up when the speedbrake lever comes aft more than 29 degrees and the right main gear strut is compressed. Trust Reversers: Right Main gear compressed, or nose gear compressed, or if available, the radar altitude option. Landing: Land in the specified touchdown zone, land at the proper speed, and lower the nose to the runway smoothly. Apply thrust reversers and spoilers to stop the airplane. Do not use aerodynamic braking and do not land fast or long...if this appears to be the option, then go around and set up again. If the airplane has autobrakes...would recommend using them as the runway conditions require. Most of the problems have been caused by long landings...up to halfway or more down the runway, fast landings at speeds up to in excess of 200 kts, and on slippery runways to begin with. Not a good showing for our pilot skills. A lot of these have happened at night on the "drag in" non-precision approaches, in rain or other visibility limited conditions...with the pilot seeing the runway late and not being absolutely sure of where he was in relation to the ends. Isn't it funny the way things all add up to make the pilots job a challenge? All the data above is just thrown out for information and should not be implemented without consulting your airline procedures and desires. The goal is enlightenment not direction. Hope it helps someone ... some dark night. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:56 From: "Dennis L. Murphy" Subject: Re: Thrust reversers [Was: Peruvian 757 crash -- possible cause reported] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. Reply-To: dlmurphy@neosoft.com Adam Dobrzycki wrote: > When did the necessity of wheels being on the ground in order to > allow activating the reversers become a common thing? Did 707s/DC-8s > etc. have that, too? The DC-8's had the capability of engaging the reversers on the inboard engines while in flight. Doing so was an "emergency" action only. It was not used unless certain specific problems existed. Dennis Murphy dlmurphy@neosoft.com From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:56 From: adowney@iol.ie (Ann Downey/Fergus Kavanagh) Subject: Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR References: <52v5a5$fvn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <534ktj$42p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line khobar@paloverde.com (Paul Nixon) wrote: ctually, I think you'll find that there Turkish ground crewman who >bent the cargo door handle flush with the plane. The door was never >securely closed to begin with, and for whatever reason, this ground >crewman never wondered about why he couldn't get the handle to close >the way it should. >McD-D knew about the difficulty with this door design because of an >earlier loss of such from an American Airlines DC10. But that doesn't >change the fact that the ground crewman was the one who was responsible >for making sure the door was properly closed. Where do you get the idea that the Algerian ground crewman was held responsible for this accident.?. Part of the problem with this cargo door design was that the force required to overpower/bend the linkage, was not significantly higher than the force required to close it normally. The only query raised about the Algerian ground crewman was in relation to his linguistic capabilities, and consequent ability to understand the closing sequence. The accident was attributed to flawed design, followed by flawed modifications to the design. The disgraceful aspect was the inadequate response to the earlier near-loss over Windsor, Ontario. From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:56 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: MD-11 or is that 1.1? was: AMR..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) writes: >American is phasing out it is wide body Douglas aircraft, indeed some of >AA's "nonstop" Pacific flights actually included a fueling stop. The >dc10-30 served AA well, but the MD11 just couldn't carry fuel, people and >cargo all at once. In fact some of the MD11's are already gone, they are >being leased or sold to Fed Ex. Besides what will those new 777's >replace? What happens in this deal? Does the manufacturer refund x amount of $$, buy them back and resell them at a lower price or ??? [Not to mention the megabux spent on training pilots and mechs, etc. Is it any wonder they are now buying Boeing...?] -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:56 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: MD-11 or is that 1.1? was: AMR..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>American is phasing out it is wide body Douglas aircraft ... the MD11 >>just couldn't carry fuel, people and cargo all at once. In fact some >>of the MD11's are already gone, they are being leased or sold to Fed Ex. >What happens in this deal? Does the manufacturer refund x amount >of $$, buy them back and resell them at a lower price or ??? The manufacturer (MD) isn't directly involved in the transaction -- American just sold them to Fed Ex. MD might have some involvement in the conversion to freighters, but that's a separate issue. >Not to mention the megabux spent on training pilots and mechs, etc. Most of the pilot training would have been done anyway, just for a different type, as pilots move from one aircraft to another and come up for recurrent training. Mechanic training undoubtedly received a lot of benefit from commonality with the DC-10. Some systems are of course different, but one of the bigger ones, the engines, would have benefitted from being very similar to the CF6-80s American also uses on their 767s and A300-600Rs. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Nov 23 20:09:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 96 20:09:56 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: Concorde Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 23 Nov 1996, P. Wezeman wrote: > The figure I have is 40% thermal efficiency for the Concorde in > converting chemical energy into thrust horsepower. A modern diesel ship > may be better, but not by much. Peter, Thanks for the enlightenment! So, what do you calculate to have been the best thermal efficiency achieved by the latest-used turbo-compound radials in the Constellation Super G (and similarly-configured piston-engined airliners)? Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Mon Nov 25 06:18:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 96 06:18:47 From: wsherr6080@aol.com Subject: TWA Flight 400 accident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10) The NTSB investigators are ignoring the 4th. possible cause of this accident. After the bomb, missle and mechanical failure theories there is the "induced pilot reaction" to erroneous flight instrument indications including gyro instrument precessing due to a weather induced pitch-up, or wake turbulence from a preceeding aircraft. Wake turbulence can persist for 45 minutes or more in completely smooth air. All pilots, especially those flying swept-wing aircraft should read the CAB report SA-372 on the Northwest Airlines Boeing 720B accident near Miami, FL on February 12, 1963. This report is the classic example of a weather induced pitch-up and pilot induced upset accident. From kls Mon Nov 25 06:18:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 96 06:18:47 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA Flight 400 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The NTSB investigators are ignoring the 4th. possible cause of this >accident. >After the bomb, missle and mechanical failure theories there is the >"induced pilot reaction" to erroneous flight instrument indications >including gyro instrument precessing due to a weather induced pitch-up, or >wake turbulence from a preceeding aircraft. They're also "ignoring" loss of all four engines due to a volcanic dust cloud. Perhaps they fail to see how instrumentation error or pilot reaction to such error could cause a fuel tank to explode. Also, the FDR would show signs of the problems you describe, not a perfectly normal climb until the FDR simply stops, coincident with the breakup of the aircraft as depicted by ground radar. >All pilots, especially those flying swept-wing aircraft should read the >CAB report SA-372 on the Northwest Airlines Boeing 720B accident near >Miami, FL on February 12, 1963. This report is the classic example of a >weather induced pitch-up and pilot induced upset accident. I'm not familiar with that incident, and I suspect many other readers of the group aren't either. How 'bout telling us a bit more about it? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Nov 25 06:18:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 96 06:18:47 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote on Sun Nov 10 13:02:36 1996:- > Airbus is selling the USAir airplanes at about 45 percent of their actual > "retail" cost. Fascinating! This should say something either about Airbus' profit margins or their degree of desperation! Are the 'planes actually being sold at a loss? What is the source of this information? 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 Mon Nov 25 06:18:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 96 06:18:47 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology C. Marin Faure wrote: > In article , rcarpen@lan2wan.com wrote: > > Karl Swartz wrote: > > > Airbus has landed an order from USAir for 120 aircraft, a mix > > > of A319s and A320s ... Boeing reportedly lost > > > the order, in part, because 737 production is already being pushed > > > and Boeing was unable to offer as high a delivery rate as quickly. > > > No doubt. However another story I read mentioned more attractive > > financial terms as well. > > Airbus is selling the USAir airplanes at about 45 percent of their actual > "retail" cost. Is it THAT low? I expected them to be selling the planes at about 35 million on a list price of 45 million, but I never expected Airbus to go below 30 million per plane. My suspicion is that Airbus has two reasons that they would fight so aggressively to get an order. Number one, they want to break into the North American market. Number two, they are trying to increase their market share figures to get investment for the development of the A3XX. Any comments? -- Joseph Edward Nemec nemecj@mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/ From kls Mon Nov 25 06:18:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 96 06:18:48 From: richard@rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. "McElravy" writes: >The article made no mention of any other orders, but I suspect that USAir >may yet order some Boeings -- 777s maybe. I hadn't heard this one. Tell me, what would they do with 777's? Ditch the 767's and use for extra capacity on european routes (which are in fairly short supply anyway I gather, and with US/BA divorcing as we speak I'm sure it will not get better for US anytime soon)... I doubt US could use 777's for anything much else.. Transcons? I doubt it. Just my 2 cents. Re the 146's I seem to recall they went to some Canadian startup that never made it (?) - dunno where they are now. Karl? -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, RMIT ITS Unix Snr Systems Admin: Web+News+Post -Master mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU phone: 9660 3814, Fax: 9662 5652 Likes: Shostakovich (130 CD's), 'planes, sci-fi, cats, romance, cuddles and... http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard From kls Mon Nov 25 06:18:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 96 06:18:48 From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Adaptive Information Systems -- A Hitachi Company Reply-To: malc@deltanet.com C. Marin Faure wrote: > > No doubt. However another story I read mentioned more attractive > > financial terms as well. > > Airbus is selling the USAir airplanes at about 45 percent of their actual > "retail" cost. You probably mean "retail price". And where does one buy an airliner, "retail", anyway? Someone like ILFC? So Boeing has never discounted an airliner to make a sale? The issue is simply this: if the normal "deal" on a 120 unit order involves pricing at X% off "list price", how does the approx. 45% in this order compare with that X%? Care to comment on pricing for some of Boeings "launch" orders? Malc. From kls Mon Nov 25 06:18:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 96 06:18:48 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Airbus is selling the USAir airplanes at about 45 percent of their actual >> "retail" cost. >You probably mean "retail price". And where does one buy an airliner, >"retail", anyway? Good question. Maybe if Fred's Flying Service wants *one*, they get to pay full retail. Maybe nobody does and it's just a place from which to start haggling. >Someone like ILFC? ILFC and their competitors *lease* planes, they don't generally sell them. >So Boeing has never discounted an airliner to make a sale? I believe the point was not the fact that there was a discount but rather the magnitude of the discount. Nearly half off is pretty remarkable. >Care to comment on pricing for some of Boeings "launch" orders? SAS launched the 737-600 on March 14, 1995, with an order for 35 aircraft at about $33.4 million each, which was considered to be a fairly aggressive price. According to Boeing's web pages, the 1996 price for a 737-600 is $32-$39 million. Even accounting for some inflation, it doesn't look like SAS got a huge discount for being the launch customer. I recall being quite surprised at how *high* the value was for United's launch order for the 777. That order included orders for 747-400s, too, and options equal to the number of firm orders, but even then the pricetag seemed enormous. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Nov 25 06:18:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 96 06:18:49 From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Adaptive Information Systems -- A Hitachi Company Reply-To: malc@deltanet.com H Andrew Chuang wrote (in reply to a post of mine): > >Why? USAir's current route system certainly doesn't justify 777's, and > >even assuming USAir wins big in its ploy of getting London routes, most > >of the arguments in favor of these routes focus on the smaller markets, > >like Charlotte, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (smaller than, say, New > >York!). > > > >For these markets, the 767 and the 757 make a lot of sense, perhaps the > >757-300 would be a better candidate for the sort of airline that USAir > >is? > > > >Or perhaps the A330 or A340, offering some cockpit commonality with the > >A320 class? > > Haven't you just said the B777 is too big for USAir? Then, the same > argument should apply to the A330 or A340. Unless you are talking > about A330-200 and/or A340-200. However, I don't think Airbus has sold > many A340-200s for quite a while. The A330-200 is really competing > with the B767-300ER. Since USAir already has some B767s, the -300ER > makes more sense than the A330-200. Nevertheless, many aircraft > acquisitions by airlines don't make common sense. I sometimes wonder whether anybody ever reads any post in its entirety! 8-) Would Mr. H Andrew Chuang like to take note of the comment "for these markets the 767 and 757 make a lot of sense"? And by his own words, the A330-200 is a competitor of the 767, it is a good possibility based on the cockpit commonality with the short-haul fleet. But you notice the order in which I listed these alternatives? > >The 777 does seem to be just a bit of a status symbol to some people > >(for the airline that has everything)! > > Nonsense! The B777-200 is an ideal replacement for the L-1011 and the > DC-10. The B777-200IGW can do anything that the MD-11 (and the A340) > can do. The B777-300 is an excellent replacement for the > B747-100/200. None of which USAir have in their fleet! I was responding to the person who hoped "USAir would still order some Boeings, perhaps 777s". [ And a minor nit: the B777-200IGW is still a "future" airplane. There are none in service; so, while talking about futures, don't leave out the A340-8000, which has a longer range than the -200IGW. So the suggestion that the -200IGW "can do anything that the A340 can do" is not 100% correct -- although from an airline perspective (esp. USAir), is probably as near as makes no difference! ] Malc. From kls Mon Nov 25 06:18:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 96 06:18:49 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus on a roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >And a minor nit: the B777-200IGW is still a "future" airplane. There >are none in service; so, while talking about futures, don't leave out >the A340-8000, which has a longer range than the -200IGW. While no 777-200IGW aircraft are in service, the first one began flight tests last month and launch cus