|
0toShifty posted:The US Airways Dash 8 I was talking about a few weeks ago, the one that double diverted back to Roanoke, yeah well it crashed (belly landing) in Newark this morning with a landing gear failure... Wow that's pretty surreal.
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
There was some talk about landing gear issues on the Q400's a few years back.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Flew out of BOS yesterday and spent some time pre-security watching the Cape Air Cessnas taxiing to-and-fro. I must say they were parked quite messily.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Quincy Smallvoice posted:There was some talk about landing gear issues on the Q400's a few years back. That was Nose gear. this was main gear too I think.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:It's a Dash 8. Replace the props and gear and send it on it's way. Just the props. The gear was safe, all tucked up in the airplane.  Seriously though. 0toShifty should go buy a powerball ticket.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:Flew out of BOS yesterday and spent some time pre-security watching the Cape Air Cessnas taxiing to-and-fro. I must say they were parked quite messily. Flew Cape Air once. It's a fun experience. "Who wants to be copilot?"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:The US Airways Dash 8 I was talking about a few weeks ago, the one that double diverted back to Roanoke, yeah well it crashed (belly landing) in Newark this morning with a landing gear failure... I'd be pretty pleased and would want a souvenir of the event.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
The props don't even look bent. That means the pilot somehow landed perfectly level, and stayed that way until they came to a stop. That's skill...
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Flew Cape Air once. It's a fun experience. As someone who spends 48 hours every week being an involuntary copilot, the thought of having to pay money to do it makes me super disappointed.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:As someone who spends 48 hours every week being an involuntary copilot, the thought of having to pay money to do it makes me super disappointed. And yet there are literally hundreds (no, thousands) of chucklefucks out there who are perfectly happy paying an airline thirty grand to do exactly that. God this industry is so hosed up.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Gullous posted:Your avatar says otherwise I remember that thread. I've still got some of the images saved. Air Safety!            
Megillah Gorilla fucked around with this message at 06:59 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:That was Nose gear. this was main gear too I think. The SAS Q400 issues was main gear as well.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
MrChips posted:And yet there are literally hundreds (no, thousands) of chucklefucks out there who are perfectly happy paying an airline thirty grand to do exactly that. I am perfectly content knowing that my job is to set the radios, program the coordinates into the GPS, and then sit quitely with my hands folded until some wires are about to cut us into slices like havarti.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:Flew out of BOS yesterday and spent some time pre-security watching the Cape Air Cessnas taxiing to-and-fro. I must say they were parked quite messily. I've always wanted to do a fam trip where I fly to KSTL, tour the tower and TRACON and then fly with Cape Air out to KMWA to tour the tower there. I don't think they're on the fam trip list, but I bet I could arrange a flight with them to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Regarding the Bagram 747 crash: The FAA has released a SAFO (Safety Alert For Operators) (AV Herald coverage here) re-iterating safe practices for securing heavy vehicles. Special attention was paid to tying down loads securely: FAA SAFO 13003 posted:Note: Unsymmetrical tie-downs permit load distributions that may ultimately result in tie-down failure. Such a failure would result from the different load-deflection rates of dissimilar materials or of identical materials of different length. Any material subjected to a tension load will stretch. A longer length tie-down has more stretch potential than a shorter length tie-down. If two tie-downs of the same type and capacity are used to restrain a load in a given direction and one is longer than the other, the longer tie-down, with its greater stretch potential, will permit the shorter tie-down to assume the majority of any load that may develop. If the shorter tie-down becomes overstressed and fails, the longer tie-down would then be subjected to the full load and it, too, would likely fail. Therefore, symmetrical tie-downs should be as close to the same length as possible. Alereon fucked around with this message at 20:06 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:The US Airways Dash 8 I was talking about a few weeks ago, the one that double diverted back to Roanoke, yeah well it crashed (belly landing) in Newark this morning with a landing gear failure... I used to fly with that Captain at that airline in, I think, that aircraft. He did a really nice job of dealing with the malfunction and getting the aircraft on the ground safely, but then hosed up by talking to the press and letting them take that picture next to the registration (he's also not wearing his uniform hat - lolz). He's probably going to get heat for making a statement without running it past the company first. Yeah, I'd get a picture like that on my cell phone, but I wouldn't let some reporter take one.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
drat the GE-90 Engine is sexy as hell. I can't believe how much water it can injest in that video toward the bottom and still maintain thrust. I flew on a 777 when they first came out. What an awesome airplane. http://gizmodo.com/5991212/the-worlds-biggest-jet-engine-is-brawnier-than-alan-shepards-orbital-rocket
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure there are some Calgary goons in this thread who seem to know what's going on around here, flight wise... I though a C-17 just flew over my house on approach to YYC, but I didn't see winglets. It was High wing, high tail, quad jet, with bulges for landing gear. There definitely was a C-17 on the apron at 5:00 this afternoon.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Perspective? Or was it a C5?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Perspective? Or was it a C5? I thought it couldn't be a C5, but there's been 2 more odd planes fly over since then, so I don't know what's up. One was A330 layout but there was either a bulge on the tail or something over the fuselage, and there was a low wing twin turbo-prob with a t-tail and an extra set of small wings on the tail. Probably just imagining it now though. edit: I probably shouldn't start a round of "was it?" without a picture. The problem is, the engines on all these had unique sounds, but by the time I get outside to see what's up, they gone. edit2: Windy as gently caress today so planes are all taking weird approaches. Planes are usually high and lined up by the time they fly over my house, but they've been low with gear down today. Saw a Westjet 737 making a turn in over my parking lot! (gear down) Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 02:43 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:low wing twin turbo-prob with a t-tail and an extra set of small wings on the tail. I just like guessing. This sounds like some sort of military electronic warfare King Air:  Basically a King Air with poo poo hanging all over it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Regarding the Bagram 747 crash: The FAA has released a SAFO (Safety Alert For Operators) (AV Herald coverage here) re-iterating safe practices for securing heavy vehicles. Special attention was paid to tying down loads securely: Especially if you've seen any of the pictures showing how some of the commercial aircraft (i.e., non-C-5/-17/-130/etc grey tails) were tying down non-standard heavy loads like vehicles:    I get that tie-downs are probably the LIMFAC here so throwing a couple of 25K chains on that bitch and calling it a day probably isn't an option, but jesus... 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I just like guessing. This sounds like some sort of military electronic warfare King Air: A Beech 1900 (of which there are a poo poo-ton at YYC now) would also qualify as "a King Air with poo poo hanging all over it" as well. Jonny Nox I'm sorry I can't help, today was an off day for me so I wasn't up at the airport.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:I thought it couldn't be a C5, but there's been 2 more odd planes fly over since then, so I don't know what's up. One was A330 layout but there was either a bulge on the tail or something over the fuselage, and there was a low wing twin turbo-prob with a t-tail and an extra set of small wings on the tail. IL-76, for the first.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Especially if you've seen any of the pictures showing how some of the commercial aircraft (i.e., non-C-5/-17/-130/etc grey tails) were tying down non-standard heavy loads like vehicles: those oshkosh matvs are not exactly light...
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:IL-76, for the first. AYUP, that's the one. The other 2 were probably a Beech and maybe a 767 with weird perspective issues. Told you I get excited over nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
The Beech was probably a 1900 of some sort.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Vork!Vork!Vork! posted:
I'm not quite sure if denotes "These vehicles might as well have been restrained by the parking brake, how anyone got off this particular death-plane unscathed we'll never know" or "this level of anchoring would be excessive, even if they planned on performing aerobatics while laden".Unless the issue is that they've used an appropriate number of tie downs, but have overloaded the vehicle tie downs? I notice that they've gone to the trouble of jacking and packing the underside of the vehicle so it doesn't move around on the suspension. Help me out?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:I'm pretty sure there are some Calgary goons in this thread who seem to know what's going on around here, flight wise... YYC goon here, and a fellow spotting buddy says there is a C-5 here right now, if it sticks around overnight I'll try to confirm it tomorrow. We have had the IL-76 here a few times, and we get the odd C-17 here from the RCAF and RAF.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
IPCRESS posted:I'm not quite sure if The first for me. Granted I'm spoiled only having any real experience with military airlifters, where the tie-downs in the floor are basically rated for a kajillion pounds, so you can throw a couple of 25K chains on something and call it good, but I can't say I would feel comfortable flying on a jet with M-ATVs tied down with a bunch of 5K straps. The problem is that when you increase the amount of tie downs, you increase the amount of failure points. If I'm using 4 25K chains to tie down some notional object, I've only got 4 failure points (including the chain, the tiedown point, and where it's anchored on the object as one failure point). If I have to use 20 5K straps to tie down the same object, now I've just increased the probability of something going wrong, because a) the load dynamics are going to be much more complex with 20 tie downs than 5 which could lead to b) the dynamics temporarily placing undue stress on a few of the straps, causing them to break which c) now places an increased load on the remaining straps, which obviously could cause d) a cascading failure. Even if I increase the amount of straps a few past the minimum, there's still a smaller safety margin than if I was using a couple big-rear end chains. There's a reason the military almost always uses chains if it's dealing with something that is in a weight class to allow their use (we won't chain down a tow bar, but you can bet your rear end we'll use chains on a power cart). It's a poor analogy (not the least of which because it's an indirect car analogy) but if you were carrying something in a pickup, would you rather hold it in place in the bed using a couple of cargo straps or by wrapping a shitload of twine around it?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:drat the GE-90 Engine is sexy as hell. I can't believe how much water it can injest in that video toward the bottom and still maintain thrust. I flew on a 777 when they first came out. What an awesome airplane. That's pretty awesome, didn't realize how much sheer power they had gotten up to now. Though of course, Gizmodo's amazingly lovely journalism, here's correction(s) from the comments: quote:Erm... the -115B is rated for 115,000lb, not 125,000lbs. The clue is in the name. The higher output versions, the -110B and -115B, are for the 777-200F,-200LR, and -300ER, and came a lot later than the originals as flown by BA until very recently. Though he's right about the rating for 115k lb of thrust, I guess it survived the redline/torture test at ~122k without any issues.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
It amuses me that the GE-90 has a diameter slightly more than a foot smaller than a 737 fuselage. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
"Feed me a stray jet"
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
So there is most definitely at C-5 here at Calgary right now (apparently due to a fuel leak in the cargo hold): C5 D I V 3 R S I O N by Wee in YYC, on Flickr This shot taken by a local YYC spotter. Oh and this is here right now too:  ... by Wee in YYC, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
Here, have a helicopter landing in the loading dock of the Boston Convention Center as part of a conference for critical care nurses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jEK1KHuw24
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
You have to be a certain level of insane to be a helicopter pilot to begin with, I think. That just gets amplified if its any type of emergency or search and rescue helicopter pilot.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It's a poor analogy (not the least of which because it's an indirect car analogy) but if you were carrying something in a pickup, would you rather hold it in place in the bed using a couple of cargo straps or by wrapping a shitload of twine around it?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Bugsmasher posted:So there is most definitely at C-5 here at Calgary right now (apparently due to a fuel leak in the cargo hold): Possibly it's the GE 90 photos on this page, but those engines look tiny.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Possibly it's the GE 90 photos on this page, but those engines look tiny. They are, relatively. It's called the TF-39, they produce less than half the thrust of a GE90, and have a lower bypass ratio (8:1 vs 10:1 for the GE90) so the fan is smaller relative to the core. 747s use the similar CF-6, look at the GE90 test 747 to see the size difference: 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Possibly it's the GE 90 photos on this page, but those engines look tiny. Those are basically the same engines as a 747 right? e;fb hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 17:48 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:46
|
|
