Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Air travel!

Sadly unsurprising, fixed wing aerial firefighting is under-regulated, wildly dangerous and surprisingly poorly paid.

The Australian civil aviation authority specifically waived a whole set of regulations to allow N134CG to operate in Australia...
 
Flight emergency over the skies of Madrid right now! An Air Canada flight had engine trouble on take-off which also led to the partial destruction of the landing gear. The flight has been flying over the Madrid area for more than an hour trying to burn off excess fuel before attempting the emergency landing. Lots of initial alarm in Madrid as the 767 was flying very low over the city...

Flight tracker here Live Flight Tracker - Real-Time Flight Tracker Map | Flightradar24

Information in Spanish here: Barajas prepara el aterrizaje de emergencia de un avión canadiense con daños en una rueda y un motor
 
I see another Pegasus jet has skidded off a runway and with deadly results this time. They do have a certain MO for their crashes.

Once - Well, jets do skid off runways time to time
Twice - Could be a coincidence
Three times - That's a pattern

I will not be flying this airline.
 
I see another Pegasus jet has skidded off a runway and with deadly results this time. They do have a certain MO for their crashes.

Once - Well, jets do skid off runways time to time
Twice - Could be a coincidence
Three times - That's a pattern

I will not be flying this airline.


Boeing 737 too...
 
Boeing 737 too...
There is a discussion currently going on in an aviation forum about the tendency of 737s to overrun runaways in inclement weather, and to break apart during relatively minor runway excursion incidents, compared with A320s in similar situations anyway. Something I didn't know (if the claims made by several members of that aviation forum are correct) is that the A320 is certified to withstand forces of 16g in case of an impact, whereas the 737 is only good for 5g. Not sure if they're talking about the fuselage or the seats, but it is massive difference either way.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that if the FAA hadn't been the gimp in Boeing's basement for all these decades, the 737 would have lost its airworthiness directive a long time ago. It's a bit like keep granting MOT certificates to a 1970s Ford Cortina with no seatbeatls at the back and pisspoor brakes.
 
There is a discussion currently going on in an aviation forum about the tendency of 737s to overrun runaways in inclement weather, and to break apart during relatively minor runway excursion incidents, compared with A320s in similar situations anyway. Something I didn't know (if the claims made by several members of that aviation forum are correct) is that the A320 is certified to withstand forces of 16g in case of an impact, whereas the 737 is only good for 5g. Not sure if they're talking about the fuselage or the seats, but it is massive difference either way.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that if the FAA hadn't been the gimp in Boeing's basement for all these decades, the 737 would have lost its airworthiness directive a long time ago. It's a bit like keep granting MOT certificates to a 1970s Ford Cortina with no seatbeatls at the back and pisspoor brakes.

You're probably right that the 737 should have been ditched years ago and I imagine there's more than a few at Boeing saying the same thing loudly. Their overly cozy relationship with the FAA probably did have something to do with that.

The other stuff sounds a bit alarmist though. The safety record of the 737 has been excellent. I'm more interested in why it's Pegasus pilots that are so averse to keeping their plane on the runway.
 
No idea about the G thing, but 16G would surely be fatal anyway?
Depends on the timescale. Besides, transient 16g load on an airframe (or even seat attach points) doesn't necessarily translate to the same for someone strapped into a seat riding inside. Figures around 15g sound like testing specs concerning floor acceleration and thus seat attach points/rails - see eg CFR 25.562. For example - 16g here:
 
Last edited:
Can’t stop watching this. Must have been pretty hair raising being a passenger today. At least one plane did 2 go rounds

the touch and go is at 5hrs 5mins.

 
air india.. not recommended. they just changed my flight thats tomorrow to something mental with a 26 hour wait in mumbai airport to connect. how can that even be allowed?
 
Question for the pilots in here: given the ever-increasing sophistication of computer technology in aviation, aren’t we yet at the stage where the auto-land capability of a latest generation aircraft (say an A350 or B787) would not only be able to safely land a plane in such challenging conditions, but do so safer than a human pilot? Or is it not allowed because of regulations/ politics?
 
I suspect auto pilot can land a plane more safely than a pilot in perfect conditions but would cope badly with extreme conditions. Would a computer correct a manoeuvre quickly enough in adverse conditions. Are they programmed to abort landings IN unfavourable conditions?
 
air india.. not recommended. they just changed my flight thats tomorrow to something mental with a 26 hour wait in mumbai airport to connect. how can that even be allowed?


Because they are Air India. You can of course leave the airport and spend a day in the complete shithole that is Mumbai...
 
I suspect auto pilot can land a plane more safely than a pilot in perfect conditions but would cope badly with extreme conditions. Would a computer correct a manoeuvre quickly enough in adverse conditions. Are they programmed to abort landings IN unfavourable conditions?
I would have thought that computers by can by their very nature calculate and analyse complex data much faster than human beings, which would make them better at landing in challenging conditions that require multiple and fast changes to the control surfaces and throttle settings of a plane. The pilot could still override the autopilot if a situation becomes extreme or the computer fails to react approprietly to any given aspect of the approach.
 
I suspect auto pilot can land a plane more safely than a pilot in perfect conditions but would cope badly with extreme conditions. Would a computer correct a manoeuvre quickly enough in adverse conditions. Are they programmed to abort landings IN unfavourable conditions?

it depends what you mean by "extreme" conditions. Autoland systems are designed for use in very low visibility and (usually) have a lower crosswind limit than a manual landing. So all of these failed approaches in the storm are almost certainly being flown manually.
 
Because they are Air India. You can of course leave the airport and spend a day in the complete shithole that is Mumbai...
They rebooked me on something decent with few hrs stop in Delhi instead, but it took 1 hour 40 mins of a really painful phonecall yesterday evening. :rolleyes:
Why is the on hold music the same for everything , like uk power company and air india hq same stupid music??
 
They rebooked me on something decent with few hrs stop in Delhi instead, but it took 1 hour 40 mins of a really painful phonecall yesterday evening. :rolleyes:
Why is the on hold music the same for everything , like uk power company and air india hq same stupid music??

Ah well, hope you have a lovely time. And the LHR-Delhi isn't late...
 
I would have thought that computers by can by their very nature calculate and analyse complex data much faster than human beings, which would make them better at landing in challenging conditions that require multiple and fast changes to the control surfaces and throttle settings of a plane. The pilot could still override the autopilot if a situation becomes extreme or the computer fails to react approprietly to any given aspect of the approach.
I think it’s just the shear (ha) number of variables once you get strong crosswinds. Auto land can land a plane in the dark or fog as long as the wind is kind of in the right direction (even if not) and not to chaotic. Storm force winds like this are going to have all kinds of different gusts from multiple directions caused by the air moving over the ground. Crosswind landings are a bit of an art rather than a science In any case- I haven’t got much beyond the crayon stage...
 
Cheers. I keep meaning to check the museum out. If memory serves they open the first Sunday of every month, and I never manage to remember about it on the 'right' weekend...
 
No idea about the G thing, but 16G would surely be fatal anyway?



First, on December 10, 1954, John Paul Stapp, facing forward, was accelerated to a speed of 632 mph, breaking the land speed record and making him "the fastest man on earth." The sled was then slowed by water, and Stapp took 46.2 g for 1.1 seconds.


In the second event, on May 16, 1958, Eli Beeding, facing backward, was accelerated to 35 mph, then stopped in less than 1/10 second (over a distance of 1 foot). Sensors showed Beeding took a momentary peak of 82.6 g while sustaining an average of 40.4 gs for 0.04 seconds.
 
Back
Top Bottom