![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rich Ahrens wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e- : On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote: On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" wrote: "Jay Maynard" wrote in message ... On 2008-01-18, wrote: Boeing sent an AOG team ^^^ What's an AOG team? -- "Aircraft On Ground"? Al G Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the ground costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that. Dean It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings, body all look shot. I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix. FWIW, this comes from a BBC report: Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways. "They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service." Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the aircraft on airbags, he says. The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped. Ha, ha, so much he knew ! Virtually all of it contradicted by the facts. Gilbert |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gilbert Smith wrote in
: Rich Ahrens wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e- : On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote: On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" wrote: "Jay Maynard" wrote in message ... On 2008-01-18, wrote: Boeing sent an AOG team ^^^ What's an AOG team? -- "Aircraft On Ground"? Al G Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the ground costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that. Dean It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings, body all look shot. I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix. FWIW, this comes from a BBC report: Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways. "They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service." Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the aircraft on airbags, he says. The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped. Ha, ha, so much he knew ! Virtually all of it contradicted by the facts. What facts? Bertie |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:50:44 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote: Big John wrote in : On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:22:34 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Big John wrote in : ----------------------------clip------------------------------- The radio gear has improived quite a lot since then. We regulaly do Cat3 autolandings and damned if the airplane doesn't do them almost perfectly. I mean the needles don't budge on the way down an ILS. Used to be I could go donw an ILS almost as good myself, but we use auto aproach so much nowadays that edge is disappearing. Don;t know about the 380. I vaguely remember one having a runway excursion, but I can't remember where. Bertie Thanks for the info. I'll rest a little easier when in back end and approach is to minimums in heavy rain at night. Oh yeah, it works very well. We can land in absolutely zero/zero perfectly safely, though we actully need a little bit of vis to be legal just so we can find outr way of the runway! But in many places we land with no DH at all, and no requirement to see anything before touchdown, though we always see something. We can land in places we can't take off from! On touchdown, the airplane will continue down the runway absolutely on the center line. The autobrakes will stop us the speedbrakes auto-deploy and the only thing we do manually is select reverse if we want it. 380 may not have been current? You notice that things seem to get recycled at later dates when somone just receives it and forwards with no date of event. Yeah, I can't remember, exactly, but i think it was some time ago. Dunno. Bertie ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------------------------- Bertie I can see now why the Airlines are talking about taking Private Pilots who have just upgraded to Commercial and putting in right seat to fill coming Pilot shortage due to lack of retired Mil Pilots. Knew you all had zero zero but haden't read that was authorized, except only at a few airports with special birds and trained aircrews. Big brother all the way. That's right. The aircraft has to be certified, and the runway and the crew. There's not a lot to it with us. the autopilot does it and we monitor. There are a number of gates where we check to make sure it's all working and the right lights come on and what not, but it's pretty much just switch the stuff on and guide it onto the ILS. Almost every large airliner still flying can do it nowadays. We're not licenced for 0/0. nobody is because the airport would be logjammed with people taxiing into each other! We can land with 200' vis which ain't much! Bertie -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bertie This thread is getting long so will be my last to it. Tnx for all the current info. Our mins were 200/1 and I landed with that many times. Became so routine never gave it a second thought. Many landing were in North Bay San Fran (Hamilton Field) with the bay fog. Thick and heavy and no R/W until at mins (or below). Then landing lights to see stripe to clear R/W and taxi back to ramp. Have a good holiday tomorrow. Big John |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Big John wrote in
: This thread is getting long so will be my last to it. Tnx for all the current info. Our mins were 200/1 and I landed with that many times. Yes, well for me too, and not that long ago! Still is if there;s no Cat 3 or Cat 2] Became so routine never gave it a second thought. Many landing were in North Bay San Fran (Hamilton Field) with the bay fog. Thick and heavy and no R/W until at mins (or below). Then landing lights to see stripe to clear R/W and taxi back to ramp. Have a good holiday tomorrow. Thanks, but work for me tomorrow! See ya, and look after your , you know! Bertie |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Gilbert Smith wrote in : Rich Ahrens wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e- : On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote: On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" wrote: "Jay Maynard" wrote in message ... On 2008-01-18, wrote: Boeing sent an AOG team ^^^ What's an AOG team? -- "Aircraft On Ground"? Al G Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the ground costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that. Dean It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings, body all look shot. I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix. FWIW, this comes from a BBC report: Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways. "They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service." Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the aircraft on airbags, he says. The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped. Ha, ha, so much he knew ! Virtually all of it contradicted by the facts. What facts? Bertie They craned it onto some multi-wheeled platforms, complete with wings, and trundled it off to the hangars. Gilbert. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:14:08 -0600, Big John wrote:
Many landing were in North Bay San Fran (Hamilton Field) with the bay fog. Ha... I was born in the Hamilton Field hospital. -- Dallas |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Latest update:
"Since the issue of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) 1st Preliminary Report on Friday 18 January 2008 at 1700 hrs, work has continued on all fronts to identify why neither engine responded to throttle lever inputs during the final approach. The 150 tonne aircraft was moved from the threshold of Runway 27L to an airport apron on Sunday evening, allowing the airport to return to normal operations. The AAIB, sensitive to the needs of the industry including Boeing, Rolls Royce, British Airways and other Boeing 777 operators and crews, is issuing this update to provide such further factual information as is now available. As previously reported, whilst the aircraft was stabilised on an ILS approach with the autopilot engaged, the autothrust system commanded an increase in thrust from both engines. The engines both initially responded but after about 3 seconds the thrust of the right engine reduced. Some eight seconds later the thrust reduced on the left engine to a similar level. The engines did not shut down and both engines continued to produce thrust at an engine speed above flight idle, but less than the commanded thrust. Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was on board the aircraft and that the autothrottle and engine control commands were performing as expected prior to, and after, the reduction in thrust. All possible scenarios that could explain the thrust reduction and continued lack of response of the engines to throttle lever inputs are being examined, in close cooperation with Boeing, Rolls Royce and British Airways. This work includes a detailed analysis and examination of the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the engine fuel nozzles. Further factual information will be released as and when available. (AAIB)" |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No independent verification of this, but interesting
BOEING 777 Crash Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF transmitter to block out any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two mile range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine controls) to sense a "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust situation for the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting. We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the bad guys could use to bring down an airliner. On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" wrote: What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...30291_apbritai... |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tina wrote in
: No independent verification of this, but interesting BOEING 777 Crash Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF transmitter to block out any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two mile range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine controls) to sense a "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust situation for the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting. We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the bad guys could use to bring down an airliner. On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" wrote: What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear cou ld have been an issue. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rld/2004130291 _apbritai. .. This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it happened. It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a hile with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down in a similar fashion in LA, I think it was. Bertie |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message .. . Tina wrote in : This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it happened. It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a hile with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down in a similar fashion in LA, I think it was. Bertie Maybe Bush's motorcade was passing underneath? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Fwd: Concord at Heathrow?] | Markus Baur | Aviation Photos | 3 | December 26th 07 11:55 PM |
B747 at Heathrow | Glenn[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 8th 07 09:47 AM |
A380 flew into Heathrow today | Kingfish | Piloting | 82 | May 30th 06 01:55 PM |
Google Earth Heathrow 9L approach | news.east.cox.net | Piloting | 23 | April 20th 06 09:36 PM |