I'm probably not the only contributor here who's flown in a 787, but I bet I'm the only one who flew in one today. And it is a bit different from anything else I've been in.
- Windows: from outside they look nothing special, but from inside you really notice how big they are. You don't have to dip your head to look out through them, and even from my seat in the centre block I had a clear view of the Chilean twilight and the ensuing spectacular sunset as we climbed out of SCL.
This morning, off the coast of Africa, we were pretty well tracking the day-night interface, so we had a daybreak that lasted over an hour. The windows on the sunlit right side seemed to take on a different tint from the shaded left, so the ocean and sky looked green to the right and purple to the left. Again, being able to see out from so far inside the cabin felt very different from anything else I've been in.
- The other point is what I didn't notice. The two 777s that took me to Chile left me with the usual dry eyes and nasal membranes, such that I preferred not to wear my contact lenses for the first day of meetings. I don't wear them on long flights anyway, but I'd happily pop them in now, so I think there is something in Boeing's claim about cabin pressure and humidity.
- Noise and general comfort: not much to report. It seems no quieter than a 777, and even in the front it's noisier than the rear cabin of an A380. There was a fair amount of turbulence in the night too; possibly the plane's smaller mass made it more susceptible to bumps, but I doubt there's much in it.
So, glad to have tried it, and certainly a nice machine for such a long flight. Anyone else here tried one?
|
No. I still like the KLM 747s. A few years old now, but then there is some Luddite in me.
Will make an interesting comparison should I ever fly a route in a 787.
|
Used to know a BA pilot (he has since departed this world) who once told me that the 757 was the best aircraft he had ever flown because, quite simply, it wanted to fly...:-) No doubt the 767 would be equally praised.
But I must say that the 747, first introduced if I recall correctly, in 1969, is still a magnificent aircraft and one I've always enjoyed using on longer flights.
|
|
Although I am sure that a 777 can fly on one engine I still feel more comfortable in a 747 or an a380 with a bit more redundancy. Has anyone used the fixed seats that some short haul aircraft are fitted with? I found them perfectly adequate.
|
>> Has anyone
>> used the fixed seats that some short haul aircraft are fitted with? I found them
>> perfectly adequate.
Best thing about Ryanair, at least the drunks can't add kneecapping to their general rudeness and noisome behaviour.
|
>> Although I am sure that a 777 can fly on one engine I still feel
>> more comfortable in a 747 or an a380 with a bit more redundancy. Has anyone
>> used the fixed seats that some short haul aircraft are fitted with? I found them
>> perfectly adequate.
>>
Give me two engines any day. 747 / A380 has to be able to cope with the loss of 25% of its thrust, so has about 33% power in reserve with all engines operative (ie, windshear / terrain avoidance).
Twin engines have to be able to cope with the loss of one engine so have, nominally, 200% of the minimum required thrust capability with both engines operative.
|
>> Used to know a BA pilot (he has since departed this world) who once told
>> me that the 757 was the best aircraft he had ever flown because, quite simply,
>> it wanted to fly...:-) N
For reasons to do with available engines at design time the 757 has a very high power to weight ratio. Its performance off 'difficult' runways is still used to good advantage by UK carriers such as Thomson. Will return direct from Greek islands where an Airbus will need a fuel stop.
Far more expensive on fuel though. Monarch, having operated them for thirty year withdrew their last example at end of summer season and the Thomson fleet is being whittled down. MAjor UK passenger user is now Jet2 who's operating model relies on older planes bought outright or leased cheaply rather than latest fuel sippers.
|
>> Monarch, having operated them for thirty year withdrew their last example at end of summer
>> season and the Thomson fleet is being whittled down
Flew on one of those a few times to Lesbos. Runway plenty long enough for other planes but Thomas Cook used them because the capacity must have been right for them. Became unreliable though. One year (the week after we'd flown to the UK) there was a 27 hour delay.
|
I am not sure if four engine redundancy is that important because generally if two engines fail, it is likely due to fuel issue or some other problem such as ash that will effect all the engines (British Airways Flight 9 for example).
While I suppose if I had a choice I would rather have the four engines, I would not refuse to fly on a two engined plane. I personally don't like flying anyway and have only flown in an A320 and 737 800.
|
>> While I suppose if I had a choice I would rather have the four engines, I would not refuse to fly
>> on a two engined plane.
:-) But you choose not to fly at all.
Not many current commercial airliners have more than 2 engines. But some of the most recent do have huge engines. Seen the size of an engine close up on say a 787? You can see why they can fly with only one.
|
To me, they are all much off a muchness and a backwards step for passenger comfort after the Viscount and Vanguard.
Given that flying enjoyment now all depends on the airline and the airport experience
|
>> >> While I suppose if I had a choice I would rather have the four
>> engines, I would not refuse to fly
>> >> on a two engined plane.
>>
>> :-) But you choose not to fly at all.
>>
>> Not many current commercial airliners have more than 2 engines. But some of the most
>> recent do have huge engines. Seen the size of an engine close up on say
>> a 787? You can see why they can fly with only one.
Ask any pilot and he will tell you they can't fly with none. And starting with two you have a higher chance of ending with none.
Tho to be fair, if you ice up your fuel feeds any number of engines wont help....
|
>> Tho to be fair, if you ice up your fuel feeds any number of engines
>> wont help....
That's the point I think. The mean time between failures for a modern turbofan is such that unconnected dual failures on a twin are, SFAIK non-existent. Obviously, the sort of thing that happened to the 777 you allude to above, birdstrikes or ingestion of ash will affect four or even six/eight engines equally.
Never flew in a Guardsvan but the two trips I had in Viscounts were certainly memorable for the space and the panoramic views.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 5 Dec 14 at 14:16
|
> birdstrikes
You'd have to be extremely unlucky to have a multiple engine bird strike, but a good chance of a one engine bird strike. Don't care how many fuel pumps or redundant systems you have you still only have one engine left.
>>or ingestion of ash
>> will affect four
again tho to be fair we do have multiple histories of a 4 engine flameout caused by ash ingestion.
However way you look at it, reducing the number of engines is an economy measure, not a safety one.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 5 Dec 14 at 14:37
|
>> You'd have to be extremely unlucky to have a multiple engine bird strike, but a
>> good chance of a one engine bird strike. Don't care how many fuel pumps or
>> redundant systems you have you still only have one engine left.
>> However way you look at it, reducing the number of engines is an economy measure,
>> not a safety one.
>>
I wasn't looking for an argument, just stating case that move from four to two engines appears to have worked as planned.
Two multiple birdstrike cases leap to mind. Firstly and obviously the Hudson river ditching and secondly Ryanair's loss of a hull (but no passengers) at Rome in November 2008:
www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/10/italy-ryanair-airline-accident
|
>> I wasn't looking for an argument,
And you are not getting one, its called an interesting discussion. You will note I have referenced both sides of the argument.
|
>> Two multiple birdstrike cases leap to mind. Firstly and obviously the Hudson river ditching and
The nimrod ditching in the moray firth springs to mind. Think it hit a flock of geese just after take off.
|
>> The nimrod ditching in the moray firth springs to mind. Think it hit a flock
>> of geese just after take off.
>
i was thinking of civil flights but the Nimrod is certainly another downing by multiple birdstrike. Four engines but very close together.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 5 Dec 14 at 16:24
|
Virgin clung to its outdated (and illiterate) '4 engines 4 longhaul' catchphrase for years before bowing to the inevitable and adopting the A330. Even one engine in a 777, say, has redundancy in components like fuel pumps. Fretting about longhaul in a twin is failing to understand the engineering or the odds.
For my Chile trip, there wasn't a single option using a four-engined aircraft. But the final leg yesterday - two hours from Madrid - was, bizarrely, on an A340-600.
|
>>
>> Ask any pilot and he will tell you they can't fly with none. And starting
>> with two you have a higher chance of ending with none.
Air Transat flight 236 famously made the last 125km of an emergency diversion to land an Airbus A330 in the Azores with no engines after a fuel failure.
|
>> Air Transat flight 236 famously made the last 125km of an emergency diversion to land
>> an Airbus A330 in the Azores with no engines after a fuel failure.
Was that one a leak or mismanagement of loading? The other deadstick landing of a twin was the Air Canada 767 at Gimli on the Great Lakes. Cause in that case was a series of mess ups over what was and was not working and what was on the minimum equipment list compounded by miscalculation of the fuel load.
|
>
>> twin was the Air Canada 767 at Gimli on the Great Lakes. Cause in that
>> case was a series of mess ups over what was and was not working and
>> what was on the minimum equipment list compounded by miscalculation of the fuel load.
Are we saying that Pilots get confused with more than two engines? There was of course the case of the Kegworth crash where the pilot shut down the wrong engine. Had he had more than two he would have had two left.
I accept of course that two engines has been the accepted norm for short to mid haul over land for decades.
|
>> Are we saying that Pilots get confused with more than two engines? There was of
>> course the case of the Kegworth crash where the pilot shut down the wrong engine.
>> Had he had more than two he would have had two left.
No the Air Canada example was another multi engine failure due to fuel starvation. Would have been same outcome in a 747 or (the much later) A340. Part of the problem may have been due to type being new in service with resultant confusion over the MEL.
It was a classic example of how the holes in the cheese can line up as a result of a series of disconnected events.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 5 Dec 14 at 15:55
|
>> No the Air Canada example was another multi engine failure due to fuel starvation.
>>
The Gimli glider.
IIRC they got imperial & metric mixed up and only loaded half the fuel required.
>> Part of the problem may have been due to type being new in service with resultant confusion over the MEL.
>>
Plus IIRC None had thought to train ( in the simulator) for both engines out
|
>> IIRC they got imperial & metric mixed up and only loaded half the fuel required.
>>
Wasn't there a flight from Blackbushe many years ago that did it the other way round?
The aircraft was so heavily laden that it lifted from the runway so late that the undercarriage carried away the perimeter fence.
|
>> The aircraft was so heavily laden that it lifted from the runway so late that
>> the undercarriage carried away the perimeter fence.
There was a crash on landing in '56 and a engine failure with crash on trying to land back in '57. but not heard the fence story
|
|
I first learned to fly powered at Blackbushe (prompted by DanAir trying to kill me when I was flying a glider from Lasham) and I didn't ever hear that story. Hardly conclusive, I know.
|
>> IIRC they got imperial & metric mixed up and only loaded half the fuel required.
Yep. Both fuel quantity gauges appeared to be u/s though in fact one was merely tripped out. The MEL should have prevented take off in those circs but due to a misunderstanding between the Captain on previous sector and those taking the aircraft on to Edmonton via Ottawa the crew believed they had a dispensation. The flight could theoretically operate safely provided they knew how much fuel was loaded and how much they were using.
Fuel is delivered by volume but has to be converted to weight for load/balance purposes. Canada was gradually adopting metric measures in the eighties and the 767 was first Air Canada aircraft to use kg. The load required for the flight was calculated as 23,000kg.
The fueller was working in litres but used wrong conversion factor so only put 23,000lb aboard.
The crew checked the arithmetic but did not pick up the conversion factor error. Furthermore dipstick checks of the tanks before departing Montreal and again after a short sector to Ottawa again used incorrect conversion factors. As a result the machine left with far to little fuel for the final destination of Edmonton.
|
>> Air Transat flight 236 famously made the last 125km of an emergency diversion to land
>> an Airbus A330 in the Azores with no engines after a fuel failure.
That would have got him an 8th of the way to safety from the middle of the transatlantic route.
|
Handy that the Azores were in the middle of the route from Toronto to Lisbon.
A remarkable feat by the pilot though and the longest glide in history for an aircraft of that size even though the incident was partly caused by pilot error in the first place.
I regularly fly Air Transat
|
|
I always thought that the 757 was a relatively small short haul aircraft, slightly larger than the 737. I could be wrong but I think I flew back in one, operated by Delta, in March this year from Minneapolis St Paul to Amsterdam. Normally it's a 330 from AMS to either Seattle or Portland, or 747 to LAX, and I remember thinking it was a lot smaller than usual.
|
>> I always thought that the 757 was a relatively small short haul aircraft,
It was intended to be a 2 crew/modern kit replacement for the 727 with range to do US transcontinental routes such as Boston to LA. One it's 767 sistership was certificated for ETOPS over water it was no great leap to get the 757 covered for long/thin routes.
I'd happily fly in one from Brum to Canada or NY rather than faf about at a London airport.
|
...as I did to Newark a couple of times in the 90s, before Continental became Uncontinent.
The airframe and engines were well up to the job; trouble was the slim fuselage meant poky loos. Not a problem intra-Europe; unload in the terminal and by the time the Tanqueray and Tempranillo have worked through you're safely through passports in Stockholm and can pee in comfort. But on a transatlantic you're gonna have to go in the air, and even a 767 is a little snug in the bathroom department. The 757 lav is a bit like an Alfa Romeo: fine in principle but once inside, a proper-size person will find it very hard to use for its intended purpose.
Icelandair still uses 757s, appealingly named after volcanoes including the one that caused all that trouble. The A321s that have replaced many airlines' 757s have the seats but not the range to serve their European and American destinations from Keflavik, and they can't afford or fill proper long-haulers like the 777, so the 757s soldier on by accident of geography.
|
|
Oh yes, and two of the 9/11 planes were 757s, presumably chosen for their range and hence their fuel load. The two NYC planes were 767s, which as Bromptonero points out is essentially the same to fly. Remember that the hijackers were oddly selective students.
|
|
If you have the money and pass some basic exams I guess anybody can go to flight school. Things might have changed a bit since 911 though.
|
>> The 757 lav
>> is a bit like an Alfa Romeo: fine in principle but once inside, a proper-size
>> person will find it very hard to use for its intended purpose.
Given Mark's description of you I'd probably avoid that problem being 5' 8" and described by my wife's oldest friend as the only man who makes her husband look well built.
|
>> more comfortable in a 747 or an a380 with a bit more redundancy
More engines mean more chance of failure!
For small propeller planes, record shows single engine planes are no more dangerous than twin engine ones.
|
>> more comfortable in a 747 or an a380 with a bit more redundancy
More engines mean more chance of failure!
For small propeller planes, record shows single engine planes are no more dangerous than twin engine ones.
|
Not sure what image of me NoFM has left you with, Bromp! I'm not the one you'd want to sit behind in a small car, it's true, but I can keep everything below my shoulders to myself in an economy class seat. (Had plenty of practice at that one, I'm afraid.)
But even the biggest planes can have loos that present problems to the taller gentleman. When I've travelled upstairs in an A380, I've found I prefer to use the facilities downstairs, because they're against the near-vertical waistline of the fuselage, whereas the curvature higher up leaves me short of headroom.
Back to the 787: the lav nearest my seat was OK once inside, but the folding door was awkwardly placed and hard to negotiate. Anyone know what is the situation regarding airlines and wheelchair accessibility?
|
>> I'm not the one you'd want to sit behind in a small car,
Screw that, it'd be sitting behind you in a cinema which would really hack me off.
|
|
Has no one here ever flown in a 737, a smallish twin engined passenger aircraft capable of landing on shortish dirt airstrips with a bit of a kilter on them (and taking off again of course, the more devout passengers muttering incantations with their eyes firmly shut)? I did a few times but it was a while back now.
|
>> Has no one here ever flown in a 737.......
After some military aircraft, anything with hot and cold running hosties is pure luxury.
Dangling on a wire under a Sea King while the pilot tries to put you into the bridge of a submarine during a gale is not recommended. :)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 18:24
|
|
Set off without you ON? :)
|
>> Set off without you ON? :)
>>
No just visiting for inspections, training, and / or equipment acceptance into service. The important bit is getting off if the boat is going somewhere unpleasant or for a long time. :)
|
|
Has anyone here not flown in a 737? Boeing claims to have built the 10,000th one in 2012.
|
>> Has anyone here not flown in a 737? Boeing claims to have built the 10,000th
>> one in 2012.
I have but last one was a 200 series. G AVRM I think, from Palma to Newcastle in Feb 1978.
|
|
My mistake: Boeing's 10,000 was orders, not deliveries.
|
>>I have but last one was a 200 series. G AVRM I think, from Palma to Newcastle in Feb 1978.
Have you not had the joy of using Ryanair?
|
>> Have you not had the joy of using Ryanair?
Not yet. Hell freezing over would be pushing it but if another airline is possible, even at a different airport, then I'll vote with my feet.
|
I used Ryanair a lot to Turin for a while in the mid-2000's; the return flight was usually the last out so meant I could have a full day before returning. The airport was effectively closed by then, mostly in darkness but for the active check in desk.
I quite liked them - they were generally on time, and they were getting new 737-800s it seemed every week.
Had a few foggy landings and a go around there. Known for it I think.
|
...G-AVRM, I think...
I wonder how much useful information that has displaced from the Bromp brainspace for the past 36 years.
}:---)
I'm not quite that bad but I do notice what I'm flying in. This trip added 777-300 as well as 787-8 to the types I've flown in. A330-300 is the only current longhauler I'm missing - unless you (as well as Lufthansa) count the seldom-seen 747-8 that I wish BA had bought instead of the A380.
|
I use the A500 quite often.
;-)
|
>> ...G-AVRM, I think...
>>
>> I wonder how much useful information that has displaced from the Bromp brainspace for the
>> past 36 years.
>> }:---)
It was certainly one of the original four in Britannia's fleet (AVRL - O), RL was the first 737-200 series in Europe. My spotters log is in the loft somewhere and it's too much ag to dig it out.
|
>>Has anyone here not flown in a 737?>>
Hugely successful short and medium haul aircraft. Flown on them probably more than any other aircraft. Some interesting facts:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737
|
>> Has anyone here not flown in a 737? Boeing claims to have built the 10,000th
>> one in 2012.
>>
Hmm don't think I have, although can't say I've clocked the maker of every aircraft I've ever got on mind.
|
|
I'm sort of with you Sooty, I guess I must have been on a thousand or more flights at a conservative estimate but I couldnt really say who made the aeroplanes. I know quite a few of them were Jumbo jets but that's about it I'm afraid. 1/11s ring a bell. Long time ago though I'm inclined to think.
|
>> I'm sort of with you Sooty, I guess I must have been on a thousand
>> or more flights at a conservative estimate but I couldnt really say who made the
>> aeroplanes.
Not that many for me, but waiting around in remote airports for hours to get a connection to wait somewhere else in the middle of nowhere leaves you just wanting the damned thing to turn up. Who made it, is not something I think about too often. Usually it's some unheard of charter company or fabric seat in a cargo plane. A proper airline is a rare treat!
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 20:29
|
>> I'm sort of with you Sooty, I guess I must have been on a thousand
>> or more flights at a conservative estimate but I couldnt really say who made the
>> aeroplanes.
I would guess I have done about 250 flights in total, and with a bit of thought I could list every different type of aircraft I have been on.
|
I couldn't tell you how many flights I've done, but it'll be in the thousands.
I could tell you about 4 of the planes I've been on. I know most of them by sight from peering out of windows, but I never look or notice what I actually get on.
|
>> I couldn't tell you how many flights I've done, but it'll be in the thousands.
>>
I think you might have covered this before, but I can't remember (I assume you aren't a pilot or aircrew) how did you come about to fly so often?
|
International man of mystery!
Actually, and somewhat more boringly, just business travel.
|
|
I thought it was business stuff, I'm assuming you were flying everyday at some point to cover that? Must have been a bit of a chore? I tend to travel a fair bit but for longer periods weeks and months rather than hours/days.
|
Various levels of flying, but pretty heavy. I think my first international job was almost 30 years ago, although that was just short haul.
Some of the more obvious that spring to mind;
Responsible for business in Chile, Argentina and Brazil at the same time.
Living in San Francisco with offices in LA, Dallas and Sao Paulo.
Living in Miami looking after European business
Driving significant company across 22 countries.
European manufacturing roll out across all significant European countries.
Company merger across 9 significant countries.
Company with offices in Miami, Bogota and Caracas.
Company based across Czech, Poland and Russia.
Goodness only knows how many Heathrow/Glasgow shuttle flights.
Various mergers, acquisitions or attempts
And so many many more........
And I've never used an airmile. My parents, however, have flown first class across the whole world on my miles. (Thank you AA and BA).
|
>> I could tell you about 4 of the planes I've been on. I know most
>> of them by sight from peering out of windows, but I never look or notice
>> what I actually get on.
I fly pretty rarely and, being a plane nut, a disproportionate number of flights I do make are on a type I'm looking to experience.
Not only could I tell you every type I've flown on but for many of those I can i/d the specific machine.
The first was in May 1968 from Penzance to the Isles of Scilly. A BEA Sikorsky S61N registered G ATFM and IIRC carrying the name 'Orion'. Amazingly 'FM'was still flying with BIH well into current century- saw it on a film about oil exploration in the Falklands quite recently.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 21:31
|
.
>>
>> Not only could I tell you every type I've flown on but for many of
>> those I can i/d the specific machine.
>>
Do you write them down spotterlike or just a good memory?
|
|
I tend to fall asleep on aeroplanes
|
|
I tend to drink, then fall asleep. I've very rarely managed to see the end of a film.
|
>> I tend to fall asleep on aeroplanes
>>
Now that is something that I am envious of. I need to be laying down so only an option on cargo planes, mind you on a nearly empty flight I kipped on the floor in the centre aisle between two rows of seats.
|
>>Now that is something that I am envious of.
I can sleep as easily and deeply on a plane as I can in a bed at home.
Unless I'm paying. Because if I'm paying, its in economy and whilst I can still sleep, its pretty uncomfortable and disturbed sleep.
I would *never* pay Business or First Class rates for myself.
|
>> I would *never* pay Business or First Class rates for myself.
>>
Business pays for BC/FC? Very nice, sadly economy with work no exceptions. BC/FC maybe one day.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 23:33
|
>>Business pays for BC/FC?
There's a good and provable business case for it. Around efficiency and effectiveness. I can work on the flight and I can work immediately I arrive. Long distance in economy and there'll be around a 24 hour delay before I do anything.
Further, I will not fly on business in economy - its miserable. Its not like I'm going somewhere like on holiday for example, so that the purpose outweighs the unpleasantness.
So if somebody wants me somewhere and I'm only going because I'm going to be paid to do so, it'll be BC/FC. It matters not a jot to me whether it is FC or BC, just not economy.
Having said that, on flights under a couple of hours its not so important, I'm not going to work or sleep much anyway.
I flew a charter flight a couple of years ago by mistake. I was working on something in Poland and had been flying LOT, which was perfectly pleasant. I didn't know LOT also did charter flights and I got on one without realising. That will never happen again. I'd have to be going somewhere pretty b***** special to get on a charter again.
|
>
>> Further, I will not fly on business in economy - its miserable. Its not like
>> I'm going somewhere like on holiday for example, so that the purpose outweighs the unpleasantness.
Can't do much work on the flight regardless of class of ticket, nature of the work. Mind you they'd rather keep us somewhere paying for hotels, hire cars food etc rather than go back earlier if it means saving a few quid on the air fare. Not always the case but they'd send us through a second or even third country to save a few quid. Although having said that I don't travel alone, some times big groups say 20-30 on a flight.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 23:33
|
>> they'd rather keep us somewhere paying for hotels, hire cars food etc rather than go back earlier if it means saving a few quid on the air fare.
Typical.
Incompetent managers manage the most complex thing that they understand and feel comfortable with.
Often this is following dictated steps rather than desired goals.
Its always direct cost rather than indirect cost.
If you are ever faced with a manager who is fanatical about your time keeping rather than understanding your value, it is almost certainly an incompetent manager who has worked out that the most complex thing he truly feels comfortable with is time keeping.
(obviously excluding those instances where attendance is critical to value).
So someone had said "save money on flights", without fully understanding the implications of what he was saying, and the environment and competence is such that the instruction is simply followed.
All I can tell you is that the type of person that issues that instruction is always high up on my list when I am asked to pay attention. And I've nailed a fair few of them to the wall in my time.
But what do you do that involves 20 - 30 people on the same flight? Invade countries?
|
>> Typical.
>>
It is but when you're away for reasonable amount of time, a few hours a day tend not too matter that much. For someone in your position more frequent but shorter trips not good at all.
>
>> But what do you do that involves 20 - 30 people on the same flight?
>> Invade countries?
>>
Can do, but only by special request.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 7 Dec 14 at 12:19
|
>> I would guess I have done about 250 flights in total, and with a bit
>> of thought I could list every different type of aircraft I have been on.
>>
The more unusual stuff or older and not in wide spread use yes, the rest just a blur.
|
I can recall flying in a Gipsy Tiger Moth, 1-11s, MD-80 and 81s, 146s (very quiet), 727s, 737s, 747s, 757s, A319s and some others.
Only flight I ever hated was in a Russian military style 20-seater helicopter that was incredibly noisy and in which the supplied ear protectors were very much needed...:-)
Always vowed I'd never be flown in a Russian built aircraft but, in this case, had no choice.....
|
>>I can recall flying in a...."
Forgot a DC3 in South Africa that had been kitted out in full executive fashion in which we flew from Cape Town to Kruger National Park and back.
Pilot had to work hard to accomplish the landing and then the return flight a day or two later on a very short runway.
|
>> The more unusual stuff or older and not in wide spread use yes, the rest
>> just a blur.
Agreed, I couldn't tell you the exact model of any of the Airbus products for example, Nor could I quote all the Boeing products except a trip on a 707.
My first was a Viscount in 64. Of the more unusual - Vanguard, Comet, Trident, Vc10, Bac 1/11, Sud Aviation Caravelle, MD DC10, Lockheed Tristar, Sud Aviation Caravell, Britten-Norman Trislander, Dornier Do 228, Focker Friendship, Embraer 195.
Funnily enough I can't remember the Helicopter types!
|
Left Chad after a somewhat fraught working visit once in an Air France Airbus (I think, perhaps a Caravelle thing).
I don't know what my ticket was but somehow I was hustled into first class with its better seats and the odd familiar face (small town, small world). Soon a beautiful fragrant stewardess placed a flute of vintage champagne in my hand, refills on demand, no extra cost. Yee-hah! Air France first class, worth someone's money anyway.
For once, I really was best pleased, once I was sure I'd left and the plane wasn't going to turn round and land again.
|
>>Air France first class, worth someone's money anyway.
I used to fly Air France between Rio and Paris rather a lot - 4 or 5 times a month sometimes. At the time I was a smoker. They were pretty much the last to allow smoking (until 2001, I think), although rather strangely you were not allowed to smoke in your seat, but only at the bar.
I did used to love being able to go and lean on a bar during a flight to drink and smoke.
Entirely civilised.
|
I never did get fly on a Concorde but my then boss did once. We were in our British employer's New York office one day when a fax came in "inviting" us both to "return UK soonest".
Well, we knew they had a firm of "Insultants" in at the time and the long knives were out. You know the sort of thing which happened a lot in the eighties when large companies would hire these jokers to state the bleeding obvious and pay them squillions for the privilege.
So, my boss made a couple of off stage calls and concluded that he was for the chop but that I being a minion was probably safe.
Anyway, he decided that if they were going to boot him out he'd take one last advantage of his company credit card and take his instruction literally. "Return UK soonest" he thought...
OK, Concorde it is he decided and returned UK soonest. I had to "make do" with a 747.
He'd "gone" by the time I reached HQ but as was often the case with these hilarious situations he was back on a (much more expensive to the firm) daily contract basis within 6 months.
|
>> He'd "gone" by the time I reached HQ but as was often the case with
>> these hilarious situations he was back on a (much more expensive to the firm) daily
>> contract basis within 6 months.
Ahh, another example of private sector 'best practice' copied by the Civil Service.
|
Flew out of Dar es Salaam in a 737 once heading for Mwanza and Bukoba. After an hour in the air it turned round and flew back, causing the passengers to go a bit muted until it was back on the ground. There, with some dispatch, techies opened the cowlings of the left engine and replaced something that looked like a big car turbocharger (jet engines are basically incredibly simple but the devil is in the detail and they have masses of ancillaries of every sort). Took off again within the hour making everyone a bit late at the other end, missing the onward connection and having to stay the night in Mwanza (at their own cost it turned out).
Can't remember the airline but its language was Portuguese I think, so probably the Mozambican airline.
|
|
I was on the last flight of the tourist season, out of Skiathos, some years ago. This involved a fuel stop at Thessaloniki. Normally the captain preserves engine life and sets the height, a/c mass, temp, wind and runway gradient into a computer which then gives the amount of thrust needed, and no more, for take-off - say 96.7%? He asked if we minded if he saved time and used full power, we said no, of course! He used full power and we shot off and up and got home an hour early. Good result!
|
Many moons ago I flew on an early evening flight from Leeds to Heathrow, a route recently re started & operated by BA.
I think it must have been British Midland. Anyway, whilst rolling toward takeoff, the captain informed us that we had favourable flying conditions and a more or less direct routing, and would it be ok to attempt the wheels up to touch down time record. This meant no inflight service. Nobody dissented, and I think it was circa 30 minutes.
I cannot remember the aircraft, probably a 1-11.
|
An interesting account Ll. Leeds to Heathrow has seen a wide variety of types over the years. Your recollection of a BMA 1-11 seems odd at first glance. BD operated type in sixties but not for long. In context of the LBA-LHR route though you're right on the money.
Leeds to LHR was started by BKS in the fifties using DC3 equipment, progressing to the Avro 748, Viscount 700 and eventually to ex BEA Viscount 806. By that time BKS were largely owned by BEA (as British Air Services). Around 1968 they became Northeast and were gradually incorporated into British Airways from 1974.
Following a restructure in 1979, and with retirement of the Viscount fleet leaving them with no suitable equipment for LBA's then runway BA withdrew. British Midland stepped into the breach initially with Viscounts (and the odd Herald, F27 and even a Dash7).
After the runway was extended in 1984 BM(A) used DC9s, then Fokker 70/100, B737 and eventually Airbus kit until finally pulling the route to free slots for other services.
For a period though, c85/6 the DC9 fleet was over stretched. It was relatively simple to operate the Leeds route as a one aircraft operation and for well over a year they used a BAC 1-11 leased from Air Wales. The lessor provided the pilots but the cabin crew were BM. There's a thread on PPRUNE covering the subject in more detail:
www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/550835-g-wlad-british-midland-airways-cymru.html
As you note BA restarted the route more recently, mostly using the A319.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 7 Dec 14 at 22:05
|
>> the captain .............
>> asked if we minded if he saved time and used full power, we said no,
>> of course!
How did that work? Did the cabin staff go round with voting forms and blunt pencils?
I hope there were proper voting booths for those that believe in the privacy of the poll!
|
|
It was a rhetorical question I think. As the Captain of the aircraft, up front and behind a locked door he was going to do what he liked! He just went thru the motions of "consulting" us! It saved the cost of landing at Thessaloniki and the price of the fuel there and got us to UK an hour early so what was not to like?
|
www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20141209EASAAD20140267E.pdf
Yet another unwelcome interruption to the Telegraph crossword.
|
|
Some connection with the similar problem with the Air France flight that crashed near South America? This incident exacerbated by pilot inability to recognise and recover from a deep stall condition.
|
No, this is a misbehaviour by the flight protection laws in response to a (falsely sensed) low speed condition. The Air France A330 correctly interpreted the flight data as invalid and rejected it.
In this case, two of the three angle of attack probes send identical, but incorrect data to the flight control computers. The aircraft thinks that it's exceeding the critical angle of attack, and so forces the nose down. Pilot input cannot arrest this nose down command, and since alpha protection (alpha = angle of attack) has priority over high speed protection, the situation can rapidly deteriorate.
The only solution is to switch off two of the three air data computers (doesn't actually matter which ones), which degrades the system to what's called Alternate Law - crucially, one that doesn't have flight envelope protection.
|
|
Is that likely to be grist to mill of those believing Habsheim was the machine's problem?
|
>>Habsheim
I had to look it up so I thought I'd save others the effort....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cv2ud1339E
|
>> Is that likely to be grist to mill of those believing Habsheim was the machine's
>> problem?
>>
No, that's just crap flying.
|
Broadly speaking the aircraft systems malfunctioned and put it into a stalled flight condition which the crew did not recognise or identify. It fell from its cruising altitude into the sea nose high with the wings stalled.
Spherically the reports States,
The flight recorders also revealed that the aircraft's descent into the sea was not due to mechanical failure or the aircraft being overwhelmed by the weather, but because the flight crew had raised the aircraft's nose, reducing its speed until it entered an aerodynamic stall.[33][182]
|
>Spherically the reports States
Did you mean that, or did auto-correct go bad and you meant specifically?
I prefer your phrase either way.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Dec 14 at 22:03
|
|
Autocomplete error and then too late to edit! Specifically!
|
787 experience - legacylad
