Non-Military Aviation
Non-Military Aviation
I think we need a thread for other forms of aviation and flying.
Emirates Airline just had its first hull-loss accident when a 777 crashed and burned on the runway at Dubai International Airport. It was a Boeing 777-300 flying as Emirates Flight 521 from Thiruvanathapuram, India to Dubai. All 275 passengers and crew evacuated safely even though the aircraft burst into flames and subsequently exploded (a firefighter was tragically killed by the explosion).
Emirates plane catches fire in Dubai; hundreds escape, 1 firefighter killed
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/middleeas ... y-landing/
Below is an ATC recording of the incident. Based on the audio and the news reports on this, it seems like the pilots were executing a go-around but somehow still hit the runway with either the gear up or only partially deployed. I don't hear the pilot's go-around call on the ATC recording, but at about 0:42 you can hear the controller tell 521 to fly their current heading and climb to 4000′ That sure sounds like a go-around to me. Why they still contacted the ground is the mystery at this point. Wind shear? Pilot error? We'll find out eventually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94VPOXc2bEM
Emirates Airline just had its first hull-loss accident when a 777 crashed and burned on the runway at Dubai International Airport. It was a Boeing 777-300 flying as Emirates Flight 521 from Thiruvanathapuram, India to Dubai. All 275 passengers and crew evacuated safely even though the aircraft burst into flames and subsequently exploded (a firefighter was tragically killed by the explosion).
Emirates plane catches fire in Dubai; hundreds escape, 1 firefighter killed
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/middleeas ... y-landing/
Below is an ATC recording of the incident. Based on the audio and the news reports on this, it seems like the pilots were executing a go-around but somehow still hit the runway with either the gear up or only partially deployed. I don't hear the pilot's go-around call on the ATC recording, but at about 0:42 you can hear the controller tell 521 to fly their current heading and climb to 4000′ That sure sounds like a go-around to me. Why they still contacted the ground is the mystery at this point. Wind shear? Pilot error? We'll find out eventually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94VPOXc2bEM
Non-Military Aviation
Some good GA and commercial YouTube channels:
https://www.youtube.com/user/PilotsEye
https://www.youtube.com/user/KLMRoyalDutchAirline
https://www.youtube.com/user/airboyd (mix of civilian and military)
https://www.youtube.com/user/AeroWordpicturesHD
https://www.youtube.com/user/PilotsEye
https://www.youtube.com/user/KLMRoyalDutchAirline
https://www.youtube.com/user/airboyd (mix of civilian and military)
https://www.youtube.com/user/AeroWordpicturesHD
Non-Military Aviation
Boeing showing off the new 737 MAX 8 at the Farnborough Airshow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tNbMXJ-WoQ
The 737 MAX is the upcoming fourth generation of the 737 family, and the new MAX 7, 8, and 9 will be roughly the same size and capacity as the current 737-700, -800, and -900 (usually referred to as the "Next Generation" versions of the 737). Improvements include a redesigned wing with new winglets and some other minor structural changes. The big change is the switch to much-larger-diameter engines; the new CFM International LEAP-1B engines have main fans that are about 8 inches larger in diameter versus the CFM 56 engines on the Next Generation models. The new engines are supposed to be quieter and offer improved fuel economy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tNbMXJ-WoQ
The 737 MAX is the upcoming fourth generation of the 737 family, and the new MAX 7, 8, and 9 will be roughly the same size and capacity as the current 737-700, -800, and -900 (usually referred to as the "Next Generation" versions of the 737). Improvements include a redesigned wing with new winglets and some other minor structural changes. The big change is the switch to much-larger-diameter engines; the new CFM International LEAP-1B engines have main fans that are about 8 inches larger in diameter versus the CFM 56 engines on the Next Generation models. The new engines are supposed to be quieter and offer improved fuel economy.
-
- Posts: 60995
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Non-Military Aviation
I want to enjoy this thread, so I hope that it doesn't turn into all airplane crashes/incidents. I love flying, but stuff like that bothers me.
I posted this earlier today, but this thread seems like a better fit for it (even though it's a military aircraft):
I posted this earlier today, but this thread seems like a better fit for it (even though it's a military aircraft):
Immediately after landing at SAV for vacation last Friday, the first thing we see while leaving the airport is an entire squadron of F22 Raptors taking off, going directly into complete 90° vertical takeoffs. It was absolutely incredible to see this close in person (about 200' away or so), and the level of noise coming from the engines is shockingly high.
Unfortunately, all I had on me at the time was my iPhone, so the pictures all sucked.
Non-Military Aviation
I came across this 'cause I think the 757 may be the best-looking commercial airliner since the Constellation. IMO, though, Trump's 757 is strangely average-looking. Maybe it's the color scheme. Maybe it's the fact that I prefer the looks of the -300 to the -200.
Trump comes across with his usual pomposity, but one has to admire the loyalty of his employees.
And yowza over his personal flight attendant. I'm mildly surprised that she's not yet Mrs. Trump IV. However, one can douchily conjecture that the bed on Trump's 757 sees it's fair share of action, whether or not Melania is on board.
Trump comes across with his usual pomposity, but one has to admire the loyalty of his employees.
And yowza over his personal flight attendant. I'm mildly surprised that she's not yet Mrs. Trump IV. However, one can douchily conjecture that the bed on Trump's 757 sees it's fair share of action, whether or not Melania is on board.
Non-Military Aviation
Skywhore!
Non-Military Aviation
Now, now ...
I was talking about Trump getting all worked up lying in bed reading the Constitution.
I was talking about Trump getting all worked up lying in bed reading the Constitution.
Non-Military Aviation
Well, then I may have some bad news...I want to enjoy this thread, so I hope that it doesn't turn into all airplane crashes/incidents. I love flying, but stuff like that bothers me.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
I'm sure you know that aviation is the safest way to travel, and the aviation industry has generally been very good at learning its lessons from accidents. For example, the Tenerife disaster (two 747s crashed into each other on a runway) changed the way that controllers speak to pilots, the 1986 Cerritos mid-air collision (a DC-9 and a light aircraft collide and crash over California) led to the development of TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) technology, and 1985 crash of Delta Air Lines Flight 191 in Dallas pushed the development of radar systems capable of detecting microburst-induced wind shear and other dangerous weather conditions. It was a crash—the 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision—that was one of the major factors leading to the creation of the FAA and the implementation of our current ATC system. They may not be the most comfortable of topics, but crashes are important lessons.
-
- Posts: 60995
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Non-Military Aviation
I'll just skip the videos then, because I'm still fascinated by aviation.
Non-Military Aviation
The 757 is an interesting bird because no other aircraft can quite match what it does. A lot of US carriers use the 757 for "thin" trans-Atlantic flights where the greater passenger capacity of a widebody would be excessive. It's what Delta often flies on the Pittsburgh to Paris flight, for example—you need range but not a ton of seats. While the A321 and the 737-900 come close in passenger capacity (at least to the -200 version), they don't have the range. It's been up in the air for a while now as to whether Boeing will build a replacement for the 757's position—the so-called “middle-of-the-market” (MOM). Airbus has been spinning the A321neoLR (which has a extra fuel tanks over the regular A321neo) as a replacement, but that plane doesn't have the cargo capacity of the 757. There are persistent rumors that Boeing may be developing a new MOM aircraft, and it needs to get moving if it wants a piece of the replacement market—Delta, United, and American alone own over 300 of them, and they aren't getting any younger. On the other hand, a lot of industry pundits are pointing out that if there was that much demand then the 757 never would have gone out of production in the first place. Boeing shut down 757 production back in 2004 because the orders pretty much dried up.I came across this 'cause I think the 757 may be the best-looking commercial airliner since the Constellation. IMO, though, Trump's 757 is strangely average-looking. Maybe it's the color scheme. Maybe it's the fact that I prefer the looks of the -300 to the -200.
-
- Posts: 60995
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Non-Military Aviation
I know a few people who still refuse to fly on 787 Dreamliners because of the history of issues. I think I'd be fine on one, but it does give me some pause. The largest plane I've ever been on was a 767-300 to Maui back in 2011, though I prefer AirBus.
Non-Military Aviation
The nicest plane I've ever been aboard is the 747-8 operated by Lufthansa. It's a slightly longer version of the venerable 747, but Lufthansa's in-flight entertainment options were tops. Each seat has a private touch screen monitor and there were probably 100 different movies, TV shows, or documentaries to pick from. The movies were largely unedited for content, too. So all the sweet curse words and boobies were left alone. I even watched a couple German language movies, which I understood perhaps 15% of, so that was fun.
Did I mention Warsteiner is free?
Did I mention Warsteiner is free?
Non-Military Aviation
The 787 had some problems with their batteries that led to an early fleet grounding, but so far as I know it's been fine since. Personally (and I apologize in advance for the impact of this post on your psyche), I'm less of a fan of Airbus because I don't like the fact that their fly-by-wire sidesticks do not offer any feedback as to what the other pilot's stick is doing. That likely played a role in the crash of Air France Flight 447:I know a few people who still refuse to fly on 787 Dreamliners because of the history of issues. I think I'd be fine on one, but it does give me some pause. The largest plane I've ever been on was a 767-300 to Maui back in 2011, though I prefer AirBus.
How Lousy Cockpit Design Crashed An Airbus, Killing 228 People
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669720/how ... 228-people
Air France Flight 447: 'Damn it, we’re going to crash’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/9 ... crash.html
For the vast majority of Airbus aircraft, in addition to the rudder pedals each pilot has a joystick located to their side (on the left for the captain and on the right for the first officer). Those sticks aren't physically linked to each other, so you could have one pilot pulling back and the other pushing forward and they wouldn't know it unless they each physically looked over at the other pilot's hands. When opposite inputs are made, the aircraft's fly-by-wire systems basically "average" the inputs. So if the captain commands a left bank and the first officer a right bank, the computers will "average" those two inputs and keep flying straight. For Air France 447 the aircraft had stalled, and the captain was using his stick to push the nose down to recover from the stall. But the first officer for some reason was pulling back on his stick the whole time (totally the wrong thing to do), and his control inputs were averaged with the captain's inputs such that the aircraft stayed in the stall until the Atlantic ocean intervened. The same thing led to the crash of Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (an Airbus A320). The aircraft entered a stall due to an electrical short. When trying to recover, the captain's correct control inputs (stick forward to bring the nose of the aircraft down) were averaged with the first officer's incorrect inputs (stick back, which just deepens a stall), and the result is that the control surfaces stayed flat and the stall persisted. In that case it was the Java Sea that intervened.
Boeing aircraft still have traditional control yokes in front of each pilot, and those yokes are physically linked together so that they move together. In this video of a 737-800 landing in Dublin, the first officer on the right is flying, and you can see that the captain's yoke on the left is moving in sync:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE0xbdweyoA
Under my example above of pilots trying to bank in opposite directions, Boeing pilots will be able to tell right away that something is amiss by the position of the yoke in their hands. Airbus pilots won't.
-
- Posts: 60995
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Non-Military Aviation
I just read that Air France story... just awful. However, while having the controls manually linked likely would have prevented the crash (assuming the copilot figured out what the pilot was doing), this is totally on the one pilot.
For the record, I like AirBus more simply because there's more room in economy. Boeing's are little more cramped for somebody 6'2".
For the record, I like AirBus more simply because there's more room in economy. Boeing's are little more cramped for somebody 6'2".
Non-Military Aviation
Haha. I once wrote a 25-page paper on Elwood "Pete" Quesada and the formation of the FAA. I was a grad student at Kansas State and used Quesada's papers from the Eisenhower Library in Abilene. I started off the paper with a graphic description of the crash you mention. The professor gave me special notice for such a gripping opening.It was a crash—the 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision—that was one of the major factors leading to the creation of the FAA and the implementation of our current ATC system. They may not be the most comfortable of topics, but crashes are important lessons.
As you can imagine, I've been on easy street ever since.
Non-Military Aviation
Something tells me Delta Air Lines might be in the market for a new CIO.
Non-Military Aviation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIRSghAKpes
Always fun watching videos of the now-defunct Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong.
Always fun watching videos of the now-defunct Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong.
-
- Posts: 60995
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Non-Military Aviation
Eh, that video kinda sucked.
Non-Military Aviation
Not impressed by jumbos scraping rooftops as they bank at the last second to land on a runway in the middle of a city? ![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
-
- Posts: 60995
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Non-Military Aviation
Better video probably would have helped. It was on the boring side for me, and Mr. Sleepyvoice wasn't helping.
Non-Military Aviation
Fine.
Here's five minutes of Princess Julianna airport in St Maarten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feriOBMNp-o
Here's five minutes of Princess Julianna airport in St Maarten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feriOBMNp-o
-
- Posts: 60995
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Non-Military Aviation
Seen it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: dodint and 185 guests