Non-Military Aviation

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:31 pm

Not a good day for aviation. A Delta tug operator at JFK was killed on the job when he was run over by his own tug:

https://abc7ny.com/delta-employee-at-jf ... b/5468454/

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:22 pm

The Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement today that the aircraft carrying Dale Earnhardt Jr. and his family experienced a “hard landing, bounced, departed the runway and caught fire.” There are also reports of witness statements that the aircraft also landed long and touched down quite a ways down the runway. Not sure whether that long landing might have been before or after the bounce. The FAA says they have surveillance video of the landing, and will release it in a few days. The aircraft overran the runway, went across and through a ditch, and ended up on the side of a road nearly 1000′ past the end of the runway. It was a daylight landing, weather was good, and wind was reported to be low if not calm.

The runway was long enough for a Citation Latitude, which is considered a "midsize" business jet, but not by all that much. A bad landing could easily lead to an overrun. Hate to say it, but based on the initial facts the most likely cause would be pilot error.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:26 pm

The aircraft carried 1000' beyond the runway? Jesus, how many knots were still on at the overrun?

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:26 pm

Preliminary report out on the Dale Jr. crash. Bad landing. The aircraft touched down where it should have, but it bounced three times. On the third bounce, the right main landing gear collapsed:
Airport surveillance video captured the initial touchdown, which occurred near the runway touchdown zone, and portions of the accident sequence. The airplane bounced twice, then continued airborne down runway 24 until it touched down a third time with about 1,000 ft of paved surface remaining. The video revealed that the right main landing gear collapsed and the outboard section of the right wing contacted the runway shortly after the third touchdown. The airplane departed the paved surface beyond the runway 24 departure end threshold, through an open area of grass, down an embankment, through a chain-link fence, and up an embankment, coming to rest on the edge of Tennessee Highway 91.

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:19 pm

Some Airbus A380 news. First, it looks like the Engine Alliance GP7000 engines that are powering roughly 60% of the global A380 fleet might have problems with cracking, and the fleet will be subject to emergency safety checks. Engine Alliance is a joint venture between GE and P&W, and its GP7000 competes with the Rolls-Royce Trent 900. I believe Emirates was the biggest customer for the Engine Alliance GP7000, so most of the A380s that need safety checks are probably Emirates aircraft.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1VB1GH

Also in bad news for Emirates, one of its A380s was seriously damaged during a maintenance check when it was accidentally dropped on its nose. Guesses are that someone likely pulled the landing gear handle without inserting the lockout pin. If so, that's a very expensive oopsie.

https://simpleflying.com/emirates-a380- ... ce-damage/

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:31 pm

So wait, you can retract the gear if there's weight on it? That seems weird, pin or no pin.

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:29 pm

My understanding is that there is a pressure switch on the gear, but that switch will be bypassed during the maintenance procedures. That's why one is supposed to insert the lockout pin before pressing the "gear sensor bypass" button or however that works.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:03 am

Image

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:25 pm

Good riddance, Mad Dogs.

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:57 pm

For American, yeah. Delta still has a bunch, as well as the not-really-a-Boeing 717s.

The final landing:


RonnieFranchise
Posts: 12389
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:45 pm
Location: Phil Kessel's name is on the Stanley Cup. Thrice.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby RonnieFranchise » Wed Sep 04, 2019 8:56 pm

They weren't so bad, other than needing new cabins. Better than a CRJ. Flew one to IAH a couple months ago.

I flew on one of Delta's last 727s. Sat alone in the back and let myself be enveloped by the engine noise. T-tail mainline is rapidly becoming a bygone era.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:05 pm

I like CRJs.

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:02 pm

The T-tail design has many advantages. It's very quiet up front because not only are the engines mounted far in the back, but a lot of the engine noise comes out of the back of the engine, and in a T-tail that noise is fired straight back away from the aircraft. The high-mounted engines also make it less likely that they will ingest FOD from the ground, especially at smaller airports that might not have the same levels of maintenance and cleaning. Those are among the reasons why T-tails rule the bizjet market.

But a big problem from what I've read is that it's apparently much more complicated to re-engine T-tail aircraft. For example, the reason that the CRJ still uses CF34 engines (which date to 1982) and will never receive a "neo" version is because today's new, more fuel-efficient engines are substantially heavier than their predecessors. A CF34-8C like is used on the CRJ700/900/1000 has a dry weight around 2,450 lbs, and the similar CF34-8E used on the Embraer E-175 weighs just a little more. The PW1700G engine that will be used on the new Embraer E2 175 has a dry weight of 3,800 lbs. It's substantially heavier. Because the engines on the Embraer are located under the wings—and therefore close to the center of gravity—it doesn't take much tweaking to accommodate the heavier engines and keep the aircraft balanced. But put a couple thousand extra pounds far away from the center of gravity on either side of the tail, and you end up having to adjust/redesign the entire length of the fuselage in order to make sure the aircraft isn't tail-heavy. From what I understand about aircraft design, tail-heaviness is very bad. I've seen the saying, "A nose-heavy plane flies poorly. A tail-heavy plane flies once."

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Thu Sep 05, 2019 1:15 pm

The only reason you'd prefer a tail-heavy aircraft is if it's an air-to-air fighter or aerobatic platform. And usually it will have to be FBW to maintain static stability. It's fun watching in-cockpit videos of formation flying of modern jets, where you can see the horizontal stabs constantly 'chattering', making these tiny little adjustments 3-4 times a second - the pilot is not commanding those moves, that's just the flight control computers keeping the plane airborne.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:50 pm


NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:03 pm

I don’t care how minor it was, he deserves a lengthy jail sentence.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:03 pm


dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Non-Military Aviation

Postby dodint » Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:17 pm

Elevator!

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:28 pm


NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:33 pm

https://abcnews.go.com/US/faa-asks-airl ... d=65921868
Cracks found in Boeing 737 jets fuselage part

The Federal Aviation Administration is instructing airlines to inspect Boeing 737 NG jetliners after Boeing told the agency it had discovered evidence of cracks in a fuselage part.

The cracks have been found in a part called a "pickle fork," which helps attach a plane's fuselage to its wing structure, reported Seattle ABC station KOMO. The part helps manage the forces between the wings and the jet's body.

A retired Boeing engineer told KOMO that "it's unusual to have a crack in the pickle fork." "It's not designed to crack that way at all," the engineer added. "Period."
Get your **** together, Boeing.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:13 pm

That type has been in service for 20 years, and all the jets with the cracking are high-time aircraft near the 90,000 landings/takeoffs design life. So while this definitely isn't a good look or timing, I'm not sure this is a get-your-****-together situation.

willeyeam
Posts: 39564
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: hodgepodge of nothingness

Non-Military Aviation

Postby willeyeam » Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:15 pm

Sounds like a literal "get your **** together" situation imo

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:13 pm

:lol:

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:37 am

Inspections ordered on some Airbus A380s after wing cracks found
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1U415E

Center Of Gravity Concerns Lead To Lufthansa Pulling Last Economy Row On A320neo
https://simpleflying.com/lufthansa-a320-cog-economy/

Multiple Airlines Now Blocking Last Rows On Airbus A320neos
https://simpleflying.com/a320neo-cabin-rows-blocked/

Get your **** together, Airbus. ;)

But seriously, while Boeing is under significant scrutiny at the moment, stuff like this is not uncommon. The A320 years ago has its own airworthiness directive for wing cracks, too.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:40 am

Airbus’s safety record speaks for itself.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 102 guests