Started by Taaroa, June 04, 2017, 09:15:23 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: albrecht on July 11, 2017, 08:42:13 AMhttp://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/10/exclusive-sfo-near-miss-might-have-triggered-greatest-aviation-disaster-in-history/
Quote from: ItsOver on July 11, 2017, 08:52:40 AMWow. That's damn scary. They need to come-up with something to "idiot-proof" the possibility of that catastrophe happening.
QuoteAn air traffic controller sent the descending Air Canada Airbus 320 on a â€œgo-aroundâ€ â€" an unusual event where pilots must pull up and circle around to try again
Quote from: Taaroa on July 11, 2017, 11:59:14 AMAbsolutely not some rare or unusual thing.
Quote from: Taaroa on July 11, 2017, 11:59:14 AMIt is fairly idiot proof already, but the guy flying sounds (if it was as reported) like he wasn't checking his instruments and thinking through what would've told him he was lined up correctly.Absolutely not some rare or unusual thing.
QuoteOn Jul 11th 2017 the Canadian TSB reported the crew of C-FKCK asked ATC to confirm landing clearance as they were seeing lights when the aircraft was 0.6nm before the runway threshold. The controller was coordinating with another facility when a flight crew of another airliner taxiing on taxiway C queried ATC where AC-759 was going and stated it appeared the aircraft was lined up with taxiway C. AC-759 had already overflown taxiway C by about 0.25nm when ATC instructed the aircraft to go around. 4 aircraft were on taxiway C at the time of the occurrence. It is estimated that AC-759 overflew the first two aircraft by 100 feet, the third by about 200 feet and the last by 300 feet. The closest lateral proximity between AC-759 and one of the aircraft on taxiway C was 29 feet.
QuoteAs its market shares were eroding on the soft drinks market, the US company Pepsi Cola undertook a major re-branding project of $500 million US which would be unveiled in 1996 after about two years of work. Pepsi therefore started to look around for a spectacular and efficient manner to advertise its new brand style and enhance its sales. It was eventually decided to have an advertisement operation involving the Concorde.Because the new identity of Pepsi was based on the color blue, the aircraft would have to be painted alike. Therefore the Air France maintenance staff had to call Aerospatiale as the airplane, for which temperature is so important, was only certified with a white color scheme. They received approval to paint the fuselage in blue, but were advised to keep the wings in white (because of the fuel temperature).It was advised to remain at M2.02 for about 20 minutes at most, but there was no restriction under M1.70.Air France required its name to be kept close to the cockpit, as well as the seahorse despite the Pepsi scheme. This is a usual requirement from the airline, which was for the occasion very important as Concorde was due to be presented in British Airways' backyard.It required 200 liters of paint and 2,000 hours of work.The whole operation was to be undertaken secretly, as Pepsi wanted to keep all the surprise for the moment when it would unveil its new identity. The aircraft was thus covered by brown wrapping paper after it was painted, so that as few people as possible would be aware of it before a grand unveiling.For the Pepsi commercial operation, there were a total of 16 flights and 10 cities visited.
Quote from: Taaroa on July 12, 2017, 02:01:38 AMThe Pepsi Concorde
Quote from: Uncle Duke on July 12, 2017, 11:27:18 AMThere was a short-lived deal between British Airways and Braniff to fly the aircraft to DFW from Dulles as Braniff flight with a Braniff crew. I remember reading an article explaining all the hoops the two airlines had to jump through to make the flights possible for various legal, insurance, labor, and regulatory reasons. The whole thing was a bureaucratic nightmare on both side of the ocean.
Quote from: Taaroa on July 12, 2017, 12:16:40 PMThere was also a similar partnership between Singapore Airlines and British Airways, but it was short lived due to governments from other countries and poor loads. An article on it here:http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/sia.html
Quote from: Uncle Duke on July 12, 2017, 01:02:02 PMI came to the conclusion it was a good thing the flights were shorter duration than standard commercial flights because it couldn't have been very comfortable. Seating looked very cramped, with minimal pitch. Cockpit also looked cramped compared to other jetliners.
Quote from: Taaroa on July 13, 2017, 04:52:07 AMYou do have to remember though that the Concorde expanded during flight ~12-30cm.If you fly into Heathrow there's still a Concorde parked near the end of one of the runways:http://www.edparsons.com/2016/08/concorde-208-g-boab-heathrow-england/
Quote from: Uncle Duke on July 13, 2017, 08:26:54 AMIsn't that expansion taken up in the fuselage monocoque structure? Even if the expansion due to thermal loading was uniform across the aircraft at speed, it's not going to increase seat width or pitch to the extent it would be discernable to passengers. I doubt passengers were any more comfortable at Mach 2 than they were subsonic.
Quote from: Uncle Duke on July 13, 2017, 08:26:54 AMThere also used to be a plinth mounted Concorde in a traffic island entering/exiting Heathrow, but I can't remember if it was a real a/c or a scale replica.
Quote from: Taaroa on July 13, 2017, 10:10:25 AMMaybe you're right, but I thought I'd seen a video where a flight engineer was showing the camera what expansion was visible in the cockpit during supersonic cruise. But yeah, 30cm isn't going to matter or be noticeable for passengers anyway. As someone who is 6'4", I'd rather be slightly more uncomfortable for a significantly shorter flight than less uncomfortable for a much longer one.You might enjoy this video (and the other parts) from the cockpit of a Concorde flight between London and DC: https://youtu.be/LyxiqgNOECcIt was a scale replica and has been gone for years. On the same spot there is now an Emirates A380 model:
Quote from: Uncle Duke on July 13, 2017, 11:06:21 AMCool video, part one of four apparently. I need to watch the other three. Thanks.Yeah, it's been at least ten years since I flew in/out of Heathrow. The last few years I was going to London routinely we flew in/out of Gatwick. I preferred Gatwick over Heathrow anyway, except Heathrow had far better duty free shopping and was very close to a great aviation hobby/book shop (in West Draydon?). Between that shop and Motor Books in central London, I spent a fortune on books. I used to take a collapsible, cloth bag in my checked luggage to carry the books home. I understand Motor Books is out of business, at least as a brick and mortar store.
Quote from: Uncle Duke on July 13, 2017, 11:06:21 AMYeah, it's been at least ten years since I flew in/out of Heathrow. The last few years I was going to London routinely we flew in/out of Gatwick. I preferred Gatwick over Heathrow anyway, except Heathrow had far better duty free shopping and was very close to a great aviation hobby/book shop (in West Draydon?). Between that shop and Motor Books in central London, I spent a fortune on books. I used to take a collapsible, cloth bag in my checked luggage to carry the books home. I understand Motor Books is out of business, at least as a brick and mortar store.
Quote from: Taaroa on July 13, 2017, 01:52:33 PMI have never been through Gatwick as the only option for me is a single Emirates a day which doesn't connect well in Dubai. The whole dispute over expanding Heathrow or building a new airport for London seems crazy when you realise Gatwick is in the middle of fields and has only one runway.I too buy quite a few books in London to take home with me, but I mainly like scifi so just go to the massive Waterstones on Piccadilly Circus or Gosh Comics in Soho. I've heard there's a very good map/atlas/travel bookstore somewhere in London, but for the life of me can't remember which one it was. Maybe I'll take a look at that Daunts Books next time I'm there.
Quote from: Taaroa on July 15, 2017, 03:11:31 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei09glnngbQ
Quote from: GravitySucks on July 15, 2017, 03:31:09 PMThere was an alert fighter (F16) that was involved in a similar incident at Ellington about two weeks ago. I haven't seen any footage of the accident yet. Pilot survived. The plane had a fire on takeoff and since it was an alert bird it was fully armed. They set up a 3 mile evacuation zone while they dealt with the ordnance. http://www.khou.com/news/local/pilot-ejects-from-burning-f-16-at-ellington-airport/450932479
Quote from: Taaroa on July 15, 2017, 03:43:31 PMJust from the video of the MIG one it looks like either the landing gear wasn't locked down properly or that it has retracted when it shouldn't have (eg gear lever in the up position on takeoff).An ejection at ground level like in these incidents can't be good for the body.
Quote from: GravitySucks on July 15, 2017, 03:50:24 PMI guess there is some trade off in the forces involved. Ejection at 150 knots has to be easier than 600 knots. Low altitude means you can't reach terminal velocity on the way down. Not pleasant in any case. Better than CFIT though.
Quote from: Hog on July 15, 2017, 10:41:19 PMWhat do you mean by terminal velocity? At least how it relates to being under canopy?I'd rather take a zero/zero punchout than those crazy F-15 600+ ejections?These modern seats are so smart, they'll always shoot you into a safe orientation, no matter what your planes orientation is.peaceHog
Quote from: Uncle Duke on July 16, 2017, 11:45:52 AMThis is a common misconception, but no such seat exists. Attempts have been made to produce vertical seeking and self righting seats using vectored and/or variable thrust since the 1980s, but none have panned out. For example Aerojet developed a system they called MAXPAC, an underseat pintal nozzle system, for use on the ACES II seat, but it never went beyond the test stage. The biggest challenges in the escape system industry over the past decade have been to make current seats compatible with lightweight/small statured aircrew, primarily females down to 103 lbs, and to successfully integrate all the various helmet mounted gear like cueing systems and night vision googles to prevent head/neck injuries during ejection. JSF has had problems in both areas with their Martin Baker seat.
Quote from: Hog on July 16, 2017, 09:49:29 PMI could have sworn I saw a video where the jet was in an adverse flight orientation and the seat came straight out of the cockpit, but did all this weird maneuvering to have the seat facing forward in a normal config. It was almost like there was a multirocket or vectored rocket going on. Hmm.I'm wondering if I have this all confused with a sled test of some sort.So all seats just pop straight up and out and the various chutes deploy? Are even all non-western systems the same non-"self-righting" types of systems?You'd think smart ballasting of a seat would make a pilot of less mass, a non issue. I can see the various optics being an issue, they are bothersome in some regards when wearing them on the ground. The risks would be huge during an ejection.peaceHog