737 Blown Across Ramp

Anyone who watched the Bears game on Sunday and saw Brent Fabre say that it
was the coldest game he'd ever played it knows that it was an absolute ice
rink at Midway. You could have set those brakes at a thousand psi and that
sucker would have fancydanced across the ice in that wind.

No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 1:14 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
Phil wrote:
I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...642-d205-411d-...

Phil

What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?

That would be odd. Why would the brakes be set if no one was on board?
Makes it a bit tough to tow.

-Robert
I hear chalks fix the problem.

"RST Engineering" wrote in
:

Anyone who watched the Bears game on Sunday and saw Brent Fabre say
that it was the coldest game he'd ever played it knows that it was an
absolute ice rink at Midway. You could have set those brakes at a
thousand psi and that sucker would have fancydanced across the ice in
that wind.


Wel, they would have been set at 3,000 PSI in fact,

No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.

True.

Bertie

RST Engineering wrote:

No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.


Chocks aren't perfect. At my home field we often get violent downbursts
from thunderstorms in the summer. Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't unusual. I
use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a particularly bad
storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane was sitting
slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200712/1

On Dec 28, 1:28*pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.

* Chocks aren't perfect. *

They may not be perfect but close. The chocks typicaly used on
airlines could have prevented this. There are no provisions for tying
down a jet. The 737 manual does recommend leaving the parking brake
set in windy conditions.



--
Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200712/1

"F. Baum" wrote in
:

On Dec 28, 1:28*pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.

* Chocks aren't perfect. *

They may not be perfect but close. The chocks typicaly used on
airlines could have prevented this. There are no provisions for tying
down a jet. The 737 manual does recommend leaving the parking brake
set in windy conditions.


hmm, I think you may be mistaken about the tie down provisions. I've never
seen anthing except the tug/towbar thng you mentioned, but I think some may
have a spot where a ring can be screwed in , maybe where the hardpoints for
the jacks go. I'll ask the guys next chance I get.

Bertie

F. Baum wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:28 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
Chocks aren't perfect.

They may not be perfect but close. The chocks typicaly used on
airlines could have prevented this. There are no provisions for tying
down a jet. The 737 manual does recommend leaving the parking brake
set in windy conditions.

Parking brake? Who woulda thunk it? :-)

Matt

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:
No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.


Chocks aren't perfect. At my home field we often get violent downbursts
from thunderstorms in the summer. Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't unusual. I
use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a particularly bad
storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane was sitting
slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.

Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are the
tires and brakes. Tie downs are the only way to go for permanent
restraint (other than a hangar!).

Matt

On Dec 29, 11:57*am, Matt Whiting wrote:
JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:
No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.

* Chocks aren't perfect. * At my home field we often get violent downbursts
from thunderstorms in the summer. *Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't unusual. *I
use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a particularly bad
storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane was sitting
slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.

Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are the
tires and brakes. *Tie downs are the only way to go for permanent
restraint (other than a hangar!).

Matt

Do small planes have parking brakes? I don't remember having ever
seen one that I could set the brakes.

Wil

William Hung wrote in
:

On Dec 29, 11:57*am, Matt Whiting wrote:
JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:
No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from
moving.

* Chocks aren't perfect. * At my home field we often get violent
dow
nbursts
from thunderstorms in the summer. *Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't
unus
ual. *I
use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a
particularly b
ad
storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane
was si
tting
slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.

Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are
the tires and brakes. *Tie downs are the only way to go for permanent
restraint (other than a hangar!).

Matt

Do small planes have parking brakes? I don't remember having ever
seen one that I could set the brakes.

Most modern ones do. Lots of old ones too.


Bertie

William Hung wrote:

Do small planes have parking brakes?

Look closer. G