Non-Military Aviation

[tifosi77]

Definitely a bigger issue with widths and weights.

The A380 doesn't have thrust reversers on its outboard engines because at most airports it operates out of those outboard engines are actually out over the edge of he runway which would turn them into giant FOD generating machines. (At least that was true when it entered service ten or whatever years ago; I don't know how many airports have updated their facilities since.)

[Shyster]

Singapore Airlines was the launch customer for the A380, and the first five aircraft they operated were all leased. They have announced they are not going to renew the leases on those aircraft. They do have direct purchase orders for five more A380, and they still plan on taking delivery of those aircraft, but it looks like rather than growing the fleet beyond its current size of 19, those 5 new A380s will be replacing the first five leased A380s.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/wor ... first-a380

[NTP66]

Our flights to/from Maui were on newer metal - A321S's. These were equipped with the latest in-seat entertainment tablets, which would be a must-have on every aircraft on American's fleet, if I had my way. It kept my daughter entertained for a majority of the flights, which is worth its weight in gold.



Unfortunately, our PHL/LAX metal was old USAir A321s with zilch. And, speaking of LAX, I would like to change my opinion of that airport when compared to PHL (@tifosi77) . LAX is a god damn **** show (since I last flew there), and made PHL look elite. American now owes me a new bag and some locks.

[NTP66]

@Shyster: Any way to find out the exact model aircraft beforehand? For instance, if I want to find a flight that's using an A321 v2, which has the entertainment system behind each seat, I haven't been able to find a site that gets that level of detail. Everything from AA's site to FlightAware simply shows the base model. The seat configuration is the same in a lot of them, too, so I can't really go by that.

Edit: And two seconds later, I find my answer in what should have been the most obvious place - Google Flights. Thanks for nothing!

[tifosi77]

I think Seat Guru also has type information sorted by flight number.

And yes, LAX is complete turds. Terminal 7 (United) has been under renovation for years, and it's craptastic.

[dodint]

Seat Guru.

[NTP66]

I think Seat Guru also has type information sorted by flight number.

And yes, LAX is complete turds. Terminal 7 (United) has been under renovation for years, and it's craptastic.

Seat Guru is accurate in that it shows each configuration, but it does not get into which version is used for the particular flight. I don't see why AA can't include this information when you're selecting your seats since, you know, it's their own metal.

[Shyster]

That's what I would have said anyway. I look at Google Flights to get the model and then use SeatGuru to get a better idea of the exact configuration. Even then you might have to do some guessing since it's not unusual for an airline to have multiple seat configurations of the same aircraft.

[NTP66]

Looks like AA has actually updated their site, because I now see the configuration when I search (A321 32B, in this case). That wasn't the case when I booked these flights back in March. I do wonder if it's safe to assume that any flight that doesn't go further than the base metal is a version 1.

[Shyster]

This video has been making the rounds. Casey Neistat is an actor, filmmaker, and "YouTube personality," and on a recent Emirates flight (it looks like Emirates 201 from Dubai to JFK on an A380) he scored an upgrade to first class and recorded the experience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84WIaK3bl_s

I would totally act just like this in that situation. I won't pretend otherwise.

[NTP66]

Source of the post I would totally act just like this in that situation. I won't pretend otherwise.

[RonnieFranchise]

Booked on the Dreamliner from LAX to ORD on my way home in a few weeks. Can't wait!

[NTP66]

Source of the post American now owes me a new bag and some locks.

I'm genuinely shocked, but American notified me last night that they're cutting a check for $207.99 to replace my damaged luggage.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Flying puddle jumpers next week from here locally to DFW --> PHX --> BUR but will ride in "bigger planes" on the way back. I find that interesting.

[tifosi77]

Be prepared for a bumpy arrival to BUR. It's in the foothills, so the air tends to eddy and make things jiggly. Also, the runways are stupid short, so the norm is to more or less drop the aircraft down through the flare and lean on the thrust reversers harder than normal. Last time I flew into BUR, we braked pretty much to a full stop, coming to a rest about 500' from the runway threshold, turned 90°, and taxied straight to the gate. Also, the terminal is only about 250' from the runway, which is technically an FAA violation.

You will also be less than one mile from my old office building. Which tells me I moved just in time.

[Freddy Rumsen]

I love excitement in the air, especially challenging landings.

You should put landing at Yeager Airport in Charleston, West Virginia on your bucket list. Nothing like landing on top of a mountain.

Yes, and be glad you are already gone.

[NTP66]

How you change an Airbus A380 engine



There are very cool photos in this article, though I do wish they had video, too.

[Shyster]

If you've wondered what it would be like to own and fly your own private jet, check out Premier 1 Driver's channel on YouTube. The poster owns a Beechcraft Premer I single-pilot business jet and records a lot of his flights, including ATC communications. Here's a departure from Scottsdale AZ, including the clearance, startup, takeoff, and climb to altitude:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRSYo9vuzw4&t=31s

[Tomas]

Here is another of those scary cross-wind landings from just a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trrUkKUyhl4

I have a question (I obviously know nothing about airplanes, except to feel very uneasy every time I sit in one of those) : given that the plane already touched down - why isn't it safer to continue the landing attempt, as opposed to aborting it and restarting with a potentially damaged wing?

[tifosi77]

Executing a go-around is by far the safer option in that situation. Consider the geography of the approach: The aircraft is not even aligned with the runway anymore, and may have - by the time the pilot got the thing corrected - overshot the safe landing area (the two big white rectangles on either side of the centerline is the sort of aim point for touchdown). There are probably myriad other piloty reasons for going around.

Once things get that assed up, it's best to just collect the aircraft, power out, and try again.

[NTP66]

Note the technical term: "piloty reasons"

[Shyster]

I'm no pilot, but I guess that guy had probably about a second to decide between continuing the landing and executing a go-around, so I think it's probably hard to second-guess him.

One of the Premier 1 Driver videos has a FAQ section where he explains a little about himself. He owns a medical-equipment company and most of the time the jet is used for that business. He's also a former pilot in the Air National Guard and flew F-16s for about 10 years.

[NTP66]

I recall reading an excerpt from a former fighter pilot's book about how he absolutely refused to fly private and commercial aircraft because of how much slower it is, making him just bored. Though that was kind of funny.

[Shyster]

This video is going to be close to what that go-around sounded like from the inside:

https://youtu.be/utpMW1bCiTk?t=2m20s

[NTP66]

Yeah, no thanks.