Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

General aviation/airplane news and chat

On the night of August 26th, 2001, at Parafield Airport, north of Adelaide, Australia, Doctor Luis Isabel, a 50-year-old surgeon from Wattle Park, was preparing for a flight home when he discovered that the battery to his single-engine Piper Saratoga was dead.

Satisfied the handbrake was on, he neglected to use chocks or locate another pilot to take the controls. The doctor climbed on to a wing to hand start the propeller but felt a ‘huge surge of power’ as the engine started.

The plane shot away from him, and taxied forward. After being knocked down by the Saratoga, Isabel was hanging on to the tail of his aircraft trying to stop it going any further, and watching in horror it shreds through several surrounding aircraft - hoping that, any minute, the engine will stop. But, unmanned for over 150 yards – the Saratoga sliced through four Piper Warriors, operated by the University of South Australia Flying School, before turning sharply right and plowing into the school's Piper Seminole, registered as VH-KBZ, virtually destroying it, and spewing out hundreds of liters of avgas.

Amazingly, no one was hurt in the incident. The Saratoga's wild ride ended, just 25 yards from the airport's fuel tanks.
Making the Best...
“It was pretty horrendous,” said Professor John Thomas, head of aviation at the university, “It was hard to know where to start. Just totally devastating.”
The university lost four of its six aircraft, and was forced to hire substitutes so normal operations could continue during the mid-semester break, when its 75 students concentrate on building their flying hours.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority conducted an investigation of the incident, and filed criminal charges against Isabel, but the Adelaide magistrate threw out the charges, citing that “it could not be proven it was not a mistake.” It was surmised that the brake cylinder to Isabel's Saratoga may have had a cut or slit in the tubing, causing the pressure in the brake line to leak.
The University of South Australia sued Dr. Isabel for $262,694.39, for the loss of the four Warriors, and for other costs associated with loss or their use.
Birth of a Myth...
Photos of the shredded Seminole quickly found their way onto the Internet, and formed a mythology of their own. The prevailing legend grew legs when picture of the plane appeared on eBay, with the alleged backstory being that of a guy with an angry ex-wife. Apparently he wouldn’t let her get breast implants and instead bought the plane. She got mad and went out to the airport with a chainsaw, resulting in the photos.
In the fourth season of “Mythbusters”, the myth was debunked, but the true story of VH-KBZ's photos were confirmed via realistic testing using a portion of wrecked aircraft, and engine mounted on a guidance rail.
 
BA is to retire all 747’s with immediate effect, a few years earlier than planned. Shame, such a good looking plane, even if old, noisy and rattles a bit. I have gone out of my way to be on the Queen of the Skies in the past, rather than the nicer but bland newer aircraft :(
 
Shame. A quite majestic and venerable aircraft, and a proper head-turner even today. It took years from when I first started flying as a teenager to finally get on a 747. The few times I'd previously flown long haul it'd always been on the likes of the 767, A330 & A340, and I never seemed to get a 747 service. Then by pure luck on a trip to Canada in the late 90s, Air Canada went on strike while I was there, and they cancelled my return flight from Vancouver and arranged a hop to NYC with AA, and then to my delight a flight from JFK back home on a BA 747. I was chuffed.

I still prefer it to the 777, and come to think of it to the 787, cutting edge technology or not.
 
BA is to retire all 747’s with immediate effect, a few years earlier than planned. Shame, such a good looking plane, even if old, noisy and rattles a bit. I have gone out of my way to be on the Queen of the Skies in the past, rather than the nicer but bland newer aircraft :(
Yes heard this and wondered how many of them BA has?
 
The A380 wins hands down in the WTF? :eek: stakes when one flies low over the top of you though.

Last year BB1 and I went to Paris for the day, whilst waiting for Frau Bahn to pick us up, (we wait at departures upstairs at T5, if collecting from arrivals you have to pay to park),a 747 roared in to the sky and the ground shook. The next bird up was an A380 and it was whisper quiet, an amazing difference. I also recorded the take off of an A350 from the front row seat on Cathay Pacific, they have a camera so I filmed the screen showing the under-belly camera, playing that back you just can't hear the engines even though we were taking off, you can hear Baby Bahn 2 shouting the odds from across the aisle, clear as day...
 
I wonder if this aligns with their decision to stop flying from Gatwick, weren't many of their long haul flights based from there?

Not really, Caribbean flights, Maldives, Mauritius and Bermuda + one a day to JFK. Heathrow is their main hub by miles and with the crash in passenger numbers they really can't afford to have a separate base at Gatwick.
 
The 787 and A350 are also incredibly quiet and comfy, but none of these look half as boss as the 747, especially the bloated whale that is the A380.

Any plane should be comfortable at the front. The 787 is terrible in economy because its simply not wide enough for a 3-3-3 configuration. I think one of the Japanese airlines flies it in the configuration it was designed for. Its alright for short haul but I'd choose another plane or pay the extra if it was the only choice.
 
Any plane should be comfortable at the front. The 787 is terrible in economy because its simply not wide enough for a 3-3-3 configuration. I think one of the Japanese airlines flies it in the configuration it was designed for. Its alright for short haul but I'd choose another plane or pay the extra if it was the only choice.

Only flown on a 787 once, was alright...


aaa.JPG




:p;)
 
Any plane should be comfortable at the front. The 787 is terrible in economy because its simply not wide enough for a 3-3-3 configuration. I think one of the Japanese airlines flies it in the configuration it was designed for. Its alright for short haul but I'd choose another plane or pay the extra if it was the only choice.
The electronically dimmable windows are fucking shite as well, as many airlines have taken to the habit of forcibly darkening the entire cabin during the day now that it can be done at the touch of a button.

And make no mistake- they’re doing it just so passengers don’t ask them for things as often, so the crew can have a nice easy shift :mad:
 
The electronically dimmable windows are fucking shite as well, as many airlines have taken to the habit of forcibly darkening the entire cabin during the day now that it can be done at the touch of a button.

And make no mistake- they’re doing it just so passengers don’t ask them for things as often, so the crew can have a nice easy shift :mad:
Can't really blame them. If I was cabin crew I'd be slipping temazepam in their complementary drinks. Fuck dealing with the general public in a confined space
 
Can't really blame them. If I was cabin crew I'd be slipping temazepam in their complementary drinks. Fuck dealing with the general public in a confined space
Er... undoubtedly some passengers can be arseholes (though probably not more than you get in plenty other service industry environments), but an integral part of the job description of the flight crew is to respond to passenger requests if they arise.

Forcing passengers into sleep/ quiet mode without a valid reason at the wrong time of the day (and making your shift as pleasurable as possible is sure as fuck not a valid reason) is not only completely unacceptable on general principle, but can have a detrimental effect on passengers crossing several timelines and/or on a long flight as in many circumstances it will further fuck up their body clock. And some people will likely be nervous flyers or not interested in the in-flight entertainment and would much prefer to look out of their window and enjoy the view, which on many routes over land can be not just entertaining but spectacular. But you cannot override the dimming, so you’re stuck in a dark cabin and unable to see out of the window at all.

Paying customers shouldn’t be treated like five-year-olds who get told when to go to sleep ffs. The flight in question was at 11.45 am so passengers would have got a decent night’s sleep, and it was under five hours long. Absolutely no justification whatsoever to try to force people to go to sleep at that time of day.

I’m not having a go at you for your opinion on this by the way, but the issue irks me enormously, as you have probably gathered by now :D
 
Last edited:
Er... undoubtedly some passengers can be arseholes (though probably not more than you get in plenty other service industry environments), but an integral part of the job description of the flight crew is to respond to passenger requests if they arise.

Forcing passengers into sleep/ quiet mode without a valid reason at the wrong time of the day (and making your shift as pleasurable as possible is sure as fuck not a valid reason) is not only completely unacceptable on general principle, but can have a detrimental effect on passengers crossing several timelines and/or on a long flight as in many circumstances it will further fuck up their body clock. And some people will likely be nervous flyers or not interested in the in-flight entertainment and would much prefer to look out of their window and enjoy the view, which on many routes over land can be not just entertaining but spectacular. But you cannot override the dimming, so you’re stuck in a dark cabin and unable to see out of the window at all.

Paying customers shouldn’t be treated like five-year-olds who get told when to go to sleep ffs. The flight in question was at 11.45 am so passengers would have got a decent night’s sleep, and it was under five hours long. Absolutely no justification whatsoever to try to force people to go to sleep at that time of day.

I’m not having a go at you for your opinion on this by the way, but the issue irks me enormously, as you gave probably gathered by now :D
2 mazi's in your drink ;)
 
Er... undoubtedly some passengers can be arseholes (though probably not more than you get in plenty other service industry environments), but an integral part of the job description of the flight crew is to respond to passenger requests if they arise.

Forcing passengers into sleep/ quiet mode without a valid reason at the wrong time of the day (and making your shift as pleasurable as possible is sure as fuck not a valid reason) is not only completely unacceptable on general principle, but can have a detrimental effect on passengers crossing several timelines and/or on a long flight as in many circumstances it will further fuck up their body clock. And some people will likely be nervous flyers or not interested in the in-flight entertainment and would much prefer to look out of their window and enjoy the view, which on many routes over land can be not just entertaining but spectacular. But you cannot override the dimming, so you’re stuck in a dark cabin and unable to see out of the window at all.

Paying customers shouldn’t be treated like five-year-olds who get told when to go to sleep ffs. The flight in question was at 11.45 am so passengers would have got a decent night’s sleep, and it was under five hours long. Absolutely no justification whatsoever to try to force people to go to sleep at that time of day.

I’m not having a go at you for your opinion on this by the way, but the issue irks me enormously, as you gave probably gathered by now :D

Say you always book a window seat as you feel nauseous if you can't see the horizon during day time. In fact, the last time this happened you ended up projectile vomiting. You can feel a panic attack coming on just thinking about it.
 
On my 787 flight it was up to me to dim the windows if I wanted, and even then you could partially dim them;

4905D50A-66AC-46B3-ADF4-E64D79764DB1.jpeg

Then dimmed a bit more when the sun came in, you can just about make out that you can still see out though;
ECF4138C-B46B-4B81-BB7D-680DE7DD4B47.jpeg


And I found that the service was attentive and comprehensive throughout;



79F753B0-BAAB-4147-B712-06770157AB69.jpegA54AF705-1122-40E1-8AE7-AF6BAA6B2F50.jpeg331A464E-E2EF-4B9C-9885-6C5A7089CD1E.jpeg


T & P probably just upset the crew in some manner...

:p
 
On my 787 flight it was up to me to dim the windows if I wanted, and even then you could partially dim them;

View attachment 222756

Then dimmed a bit more when the sun came in, you can just about make out that you can still see out though;
View attachment 222757


And I found that the service was attentive and comprehensive throughout;



View attachment 222758View attachment 222759View attachment 222760


T & P probably just upset the crew in some manner...

:p
Is that with Ryanair?
 
On my 787 flight it was up to me to dim the windows if I wanted, and even then you could partially dim them;

View attachment 222756

Then dimmed a bit more when the sun came in, you can just about make out that you can still see out though;
View attachment 222757


And I found that the service was attentive and comprehensive throughout;



View attachment 222758View attachment 222759View attachment 222760


T & P probably just upset the crew in some manner...

:p
TBF I think it’s a Royal Jordanian thing. It’s the only airline I’ve flown with on a 787 and I’m not saying all Dreamliner operators do it. But the electronically dimmable windows on the 787 gave airlines the capability to do such deed for the first time ever, and clearly at least RJ saw it as an opportunity. I’ve been flying to Jordan regularly for about 20 years with RJ and this was never a policy until the arrival of the 787


For what I gather from aviation forums the dimmable windows are not exactly a success with the flying public, and far from becoming industry standard the later a/c in the market such as the A350 or the 777X either don’t feature them or do only as an option, which most airlines don’t bother with.
 
If you were very lucky you could sit in front of the pilot...

At one point the F-class lower deck on the stillborn McDonnell-Douglas MD-12 was going to have its own forward facing windows - that would have been quite a draw.

3847-04010322e8f022cab8ecb964db334140.jpg


The US airlines looked at it and concluded it was not financially viable. Airbus took lots of Polaroids of the model at the Paris air show and went ahead to build the very similar (slightly wider top deck, slightly narrower lower deck) A380 which, to the surprise of no US airline, was not financially viable.

Boeing acquired all of the IP with the rest of McAir after the C-17 nearly bankrupted the company and the winglet design was incorporated into the star crossed 737MAX.
 
As to the 747, Virgin had a few with about six rows of economy seats at the back of the hump which I managed to book a couple of times. Yous still got the old business class side lockers and they were just 3-3. I hope they keep going for a bit.
 
As to the 747, Virgin had a few with about six rows of economy seats at the back of the hump which I managed to book a couple of times. Yous still got the old business class side lockers and they were just 3-3. I hope they keep going for a bit.

Also won’t be flying again :(
 
Back
Top Bottom