General aviation/airplane news and chat
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I had never given any thought to the potential consequences of an aircraft encountering hail, because I am neither a pilot nor a nervous flyer. But bloody hell! I guess the they must have been the size of bloody golf balls 
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Service stopped after a fatal crash on the roof. Building is still there, now the Met Life Building.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Seems a bit extreme, not to mention psychologically counterproductive, for an airline to discontinue an air service on the back of a single crash…
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Afaik the FAA no longer allowed landings on the roof of the building, four died on the roof and one on the pavement below as part of the rotor fell from the building.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
If that was deemed to the nature of that building/ approach/ local terrain, fair enough. I would think rooftop helipads are still legally usable in NYC, in which case it might just be that the building in question was deemed unsafe.
On the subject of superfluous helicopter journeys, my work will be hiring a stand this year at the ultra posh Game Fair festival at Blenheim Palace, and I sicked a little when I saw the organisers are actively promoting helicopter transfers to the event. Not even pretending to portray it as a useful option to any long-suffering multimillionaire who might live in remote isolated areas of the country, but marketing it as ’Arrive in style’, above the crowds. They will even pick you up from your residence if feasible. It seems even within the rarified world of very high net worth individuals, any chance to get one over your fellow 1%ers is still something worth considering.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
to my knowledge there are only ground-level helipads here (in Manhattan) now. whether building-top helipads are legal i don't know. the accident Bahnhof Strasse mentions was horrifying.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
This could explain a lot @ Boeing:
www.yahoo.com
The (counterfeit) titanium in question has been used in a variety of aircraft parts, according to ... officials. For the 787 Dreamliner, that includes the passenger entry door, cargo doors and a component that connects the engines to the plane’s airframe. For the 737 Max and the A220, the affected parts include a heat shield that protects a component, which connects a jet’s engine to the frame, from extreme heat.
FAA Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets
WASHINGTON — Some recently manufactured Boeing and Airbus jets have components made from titanium that was sold using fake documentation verifying the material’s authenticity, according to a supplier for the plane-makers, raising concerns about the structural integrity of those airliners. The...
The (counterfeit) titanium in question has been used in a variety of aircraft parts, according to ... officials. For the 787 Dreamliner, that includes the passenger entry door, cargo doors and a component that connects the engines to the plane’s airframe. For the 737 Max and the A220, the affected parts include a heat shield that protects a component, which connects a jet’s engine to the frame, from extreme heat.
Last edited:
pseudonarcissus
fluttering and dancing
if it wasn't titanium what was it? cardboard?This could explain a lot @ Boeing:
FAA Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets
WASHINGTON — Some recently manufactured Boeing and Airbus jets have components made from titanium that was sold using fake documentation verifying the material’s authenticity, according to a supplier for the plane-makers, raising concerns about the structural integrity of those airliners. The...
The (counterfeit) titanium in question has been used in a variety of aircraft parts, according to ... officials. For the 787 Dreamliner, that includes the passenger entry door, cargo doors and a component that connects the engines to the plane’s airframe. For the 737 Max and the A220, the affected parts include a heat shield that protects a component, which connects a jet’s engine to the frame, from extreme heat.
* sitting in an airline lounge in Santiago de Chile, fortunately with an airline's that uses Airbuses .
bcuster
Well-Known Member
My guess would be aluminum
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
It probably was Titanium but not aircraft grade. One of the reasons you can add zero or even two zeros to the price of anything fixed to an aeroplane is that metals in components have to have a provenance linking them back to when they were made ( the metal that is- the components even more so.)
When I was doing stuff with helicopters the EC 135 used Renault truck windscreen wipers except the little metal rod that fixed the wiper blade arm to the aircraft part of the wiper ( about 1cm long and 5 mm in diameter) wasn’t the one that came with the truck pack but was a dedicated one made from aircraft ( I.e traceable) steel- even though the truck fixing was probably indestructible. Because it held something on in flight. I think the wiper kit then cost about £50/60 but the little steel fixer was about £300 because of the tracing documents back to the steelworks…
pseudonarcissus
fluttering and dancing
Years ago I had a friend who worked for the RAF procuring parts for planes. Lots of bases would buy parts from Halfords as it was quicker and cheaper; the aeronautical grade manufacturers would stop making things..when the Hillman Avenger spares were dropped by Unipart, suddenly whole squadrons were grounded.
ETA the A321 o was on got me home safe.
ETA the A321 o was on got me home safe.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Leaving this here for appreciation.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Surely I cannot be the only one, filthy as my mind can be, to see interpret that image as a giant effigy of someone with a rather bubbly arse squatting and dropping off a proper log?
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Saw it insidethe sheds at Cardington once and a few times in flight before it was wrecked in the night.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Question for those in the know: assuming the figures reported in this article are correct and there was no mechanical issue involved, how is it possible that it might take as much as 16,000 ft to recover from an unplanned descent due to pilot inexperience and/ or adverse weather?
www.foxnews.com
I mean, did the error in question resulted in a nearly vertical descent? Is it that hard to pull up the controls of a 737 that it took more than 15k feet to point the nose upwards? And would the flight protection envelope system that the A320 have prevented this from happening in the first place?
Southwest Airlines flight to Hawaiian island plunges, comes within 400 feet of Pacific Ocean: Report
A Southwest Airlines flight from Honolulu to Kauai came just 400 feet from slamming into the Pacific Ocean after the pilots encountered treacherous weather conditions.
I mean, did the error in question resulted in a nearly vertical descent? Is it that hard to pull up the controls of a 737 that it took more than 15k feet to point the nose upwards? And would the flight protection envelope system that the A320 have prevented this from happening in the first place?
petee
no gods, no malarkey
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
There is a big and heated thread on Airliners.net about this, which includes commercial pilots and ATCs. Apparently this practice is both legal and regularly used at many airports.
It might the case that in this instance the minimum separation was not observed, and it looks that way to my layman’s eye because if the landing plane had to abort it would have found itself extremely close to the departing one. But apparently planes being seconds away from reaching the runway boundary while still occupied by a departing aircraft is an approved airport operation.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Question for those in the know: assuming the figures reported in this article are correct and there was no mechanical issue involved, how is it possible that it might take as much as 16,000 ft to recover from an unplanned descent due to pilot inexperience and/ or adverse weather?
Southwest Airlines flight to Hawaiian island plunges, comes within 400 feet of Pacific Ocean: Report
A Southwest Airlines flight from Honolulu to Kauai came just 400 feet from slamming into the Pacific Ocean after the pilots encountered treacherous weather conditions.
I mean, did the error in question resulted in a nearly vertical descent? Is it that hard to pull up the controls of a 737 that it took more than 15k feet to point the nose upwards? And would the flight protection envelope system that the A320 have prevented this from happening in the first place?
It's impossible to say what really happened as the article is so vague. FBW on the A320 protects alpha, depending on AP engagement, so it wouldn't have made any difference. It's not difficult to pull back on yoke in any heavy due to hydraulic actuation but you've got to do it for it to work.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
Boeing rival Airbus is set to launch its game-changing A321XLR plane this year. Here's where it's expected to fly.
The XLR's extra fuel tank helps it go 5,400 miles (11 hours) nonstop, opening previously impossible or inefficient routes.
www.businessinsider.com
