On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 at 14:52:15 in message
<[email protected]>, Thomas Borchert
<[email protected]> wrote:
    >David,
    >> So did the airframe meet design requirements for gust loading, yaw
    >> deflections and angles, control movements, negative and positive 'g'
    >> etc?
    >Yes.
I never thought anything else (although I cannot be absolutely certain
because I don't know) but so many times people make comments as though
the aircraft was unsafe and badly built - when how do they know?
--
David CL Francis

David CL Francis wrote:

    >> IRC the A/C bounced after the first touch down, touching down some >
    >> 2,000'
    >> down the Ry after the bounce per the final report.

    > No mention of that in Stanley Stewart's book; I quote:
...
    > If you have a better source of information let me know

The original poster cited the URL where you can read the official
report. You may or may not consider the official report a better source.

Stefan

David CL Francis <[email protected]>
sednews:[email protected]:

    > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 at 14:52:15 in message
    > <[email protected]>, Thomas Borchert
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>David,
    >>> So did the airframe meet design requirements for gust loading, yaw
    >>> deflections and angles, control movements, negative and positive 'g'
    >>> etc?
    >>Yes.
    > I never thought anything else (although I cannot be absolutely certain
    > because I don't know) but so many times people make comments as though
    > the aircraft was unsafe and badly built - when how do they know?


In actual fact, the fit and finish on the structure of the early 'busses is
a ting to behold. They are exceptionally well made airplanes. In this, they
are certainly superior to just about any other airliner flying today. The
pax doors, for instance,are a thing of beauty. They work so smoothly. They
close tight as a drum. I'm certainly not saying Boeings are junk by
comparison, because they're not, but the A300 in particular is a very
nicely engineered airplane indeed. It also is a wonderful airplane to
fly.It's extremely mannerly in all aspects. There are a few funky
mechanical eccentricities. but these things were, after all, built by the
same people who built the Citroen DS, the Humber Super Snipe and Heinkel
Bubble car. You can certanly live with the bizarre speed brakes and overly
complex flight control system because it all works so well overall in
practice.
Plus it's as comfy as you can get. All it's missing is a nice log fire
inthe corner of the cockpit...

BTW, I've loved every Boeing I've flown as well, before the inevitable twit
pipes up and says the obvious...... Oh wait, Pooh's missing!


Bertie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"David CL Francis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 at 04:28:19 in message
    > <[email protected] >, Ralph Nesbitt
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> What do you mean by 'after the second landing'? My information is that
    > >> only one landing took place and the nose wheel collapsed during
braking.
    > >> The green light had not come on for the nose leg after using the
    > >> emergency system to drop the wheels.
    > >>
    > >> Ref: 'Emergency: Crisis on the Flight Deck' by Stanley Stewart
    > >> --
    > >> David CL Francis
    > >>
    > >IRC the A/C bounced after the first touch down, touching down some >
2,000'
    > >down the Ry after the bounce per the final report.
    > No mention of that in Stanley Stewart's book; I quote:
    > "Pearson touched down perfectly within 800ft of the threshold at about
    > 175 knots but as he did so the two pilots saw to their horror that
    > people and vehicles milled about at the far end of the runway. Children
    > were playing and cycling in the area. Beyond the activity there were
    > tents and caravans in which the racing drivers and their families were
    > staying for the week end. The 767 sped towards the gathering with no
    > reverse power or ground spoilers available to help slow the machine. In
    > one camper vehicle parked near the runway a racer's wife, Jo Ann Barry,
    > was washing dishes after their evening meal when she heard a boy shout
    > that a jet was landing.
    > 'I opened the camper door and there was this huge plane coming at us.'
    > Pearson hit the brakes hard and the aircraft reduced speed, but as it
    > did so the unlocked nose wheel collapsed. The nose dropped to the ground
    > and the nose wheel was forced back into the housing. Showers of sparks
    > were thrown into the air as the nose section scarped along the ground.
    > As it turned out, the fallen nose gear was a blessing in disguise for
    > the friction slowed the aircraft rapidly and the 767 shuddered to a halt
    > well short of the race meeting."
    > If you have a better source of information let me know - I have a
    > number of books on airliner accidents and am always interested to hear
    > of more.
    > --
    > David CL Francis
This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores after both
engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the incident I am
referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767 incident referred to
as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are confused over which incident
each of us are referring to.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

"Ralph Nesbitt" <[email protected]>
sednews:lEr%[email protected] gy.com:

    >
    > "David CL Francis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 at 04:28:19 in message
    >> <[email protected] >, Ralph Nesbitt
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> What do you mean by 'after the second landing'? My information is
    >> >> that only one landing took place and the nose wheel collapsed
    >> >> during
    > braking.
    >> >> The green light had not come on for the nose leg after using the
    >> >> emergency system to drop the wheels.
    >> >>
    >> >> Ref: 'Emergency: Crisis on the Flight Deck' by Stanley Stewart
    >> >> --
    >> >> David CL Francis
    >> >>
    >> >IRC the A/C bounced after the first touch down, touching down some >
    > 2,000'
    >> >down the Ry after the bounce per the final report.
    >> No mention of that in Stanley Stewart's book; I quote:
    >> "Pearson touched down perfectly within 800ft of the threshold at
    >> about 175 knots but as he did so the two pilots saw to their horror
    >> that people and vehicles milled about at the far end of the runway.
    >> Children were playing and cycling in the area. Beyond the activity
    >> there were tents and caravans in which the racing drivers and their
    >> families were staying for the week end. The 767 sped towards the
    >> gathering with no reverse power or ground spoilers available to help
    >> slow the machine. In one camper vehicle parked near the runway a
    >> racer's wife, Jo Ann Barry, was washing dishes after their evening
    >> meal when she heard a boy shout that a jet was landing.
    >> 'I opened the camper door and there was this huge plane coming at
    >> us.'
    >> Pearson hit the brakes hard and the aircraft reduced speed, but as it
    >> did so the unlocked nose wheel collapsed. The nose dropped to the
    >> ground and the nose wheel was forced back into the housing. Showers
    >> of sparks were thrown into the air as the nose section scarped along
    >> the ground. As it turned out, the fallen nose gear was a blessing in
    >> disguise for the friction slowed the aircraft rapidly and the 767
    >> shuddered to a halt well short of the race meeting."
    >> If you have a better source of information let me know - I have a
    >> number of books on airliner accidents and am always interested to
    >> hear of more.
    >> --
    >> David CL Francis
    > This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores
    > after both engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the
    > incident I am referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767
    > incident referred to as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are
    > confused over which incident each of us are referring to.
    > Ralph Nesbitt
    > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    > Posting From ADA

Well, it was an A330 in the Azores, Ralph!

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 03:59:13 in message
<lEr%[email protected]> , Ralph Nesbitt
<[email protected]> wrote:
    >> If you have a better source of information let me know - I have a
    >> number of books on airliner accidents and am always interested to hear
    >> of more.
    >> --
    >> David CL Francis
    >This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores after both
    >engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the incident I am
    >referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767 incident referred to
    >as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are confused over which incident
    >each of us are referring to.
    >Ralph Nesbitt
    >Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    >Posting From ADA

Clearly you are right there but wasn't the 757 you mention actually an
A330? I shall have to "tread" more carefully. :-)
--
David CL Francis

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 00:06:13 in message
<[email protected]>, Stefan <stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote:
    >> If you have a better source of information let me know
    >The original poster cited the URL where you can read the official
    >report. You may or may not consider the official report a better source.

I have an open mind about that last bit! Can you find that URL for me?
I cannot locate it amongst the thread items that have not expired.
--
David CL Francis

    > This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores
after both
    > engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the incident I am
    > referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767 incident
referred to
    > as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are confused over which
incident
    > each of us are referring to.
    > Ralph Nesbitt
    > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    > Posting From ADA

Air Transat A330-200 (Airbus) had the wrong pipe (or whatever) fitted
in the engine, hence fuel leaked (actually pissed) out.

the Air Canada 767 (gimli glider) had the wrong amount of fuel loaded
because they failed to convert gallons to litre (or vice versa).

[email protected] wrote:

    > > This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores
    > after both
    > > engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the incident I am
    > > referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767 incident
    > referred to
    > > as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are confused over which
    > incident
    > > each of us are referring to.
    > > Ralph Nesbitt
    > > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    > > Posting From ADA
    > Air Transat A330-200 (Airbus) had the wrong pipe (or whatever) fitted
    > in the engine, hence fuel leaked (actually pissed) out.
    > the Air Canada 767 (gimli glider) had the wrong amount of fuel loaded
    > because they failed to convert gallons to litre (or vice versa).

I think it was a confusion between pounds and kilograms actually and they
used the wrong specific gravity ( the pounds one ) for the kilograms
required.

Graham

http://www.gpiaa-portugal-report.com/

David CL Francis wrote:

    > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 00:06:13 in message
    > <[email protected]>, Stefan <stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote:
    >
    >>> If you have a better source of information let me know
    >> The original poster cited the URL where you can read the official
    >> report. You may or may not consider the official report a better source.
    >
    >
    > I have an open mind about that last bit! Can you find that URL for me? I
    > cannot locate it amongst the thread items that have not expired.

Pooh Bear <[email protected]>
sednews:[email protected]:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> > This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores
    >> after both
    >> > engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the incident I am
    >> > referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767 incident
    >> referred to
    >> > as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are confused over which
    >> incident
    >> > each of us are referring to.
    >> > Ralph Nesbitt
    >> > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    >> > Posting From ADA
    >> Air Transat A330-200 (Airbus) had the wrong pipe (or whatever) fitted
    >> in the engine, hence fuel leaked (actually pissed) out.
    >> the Air Canada 767 (gimli glider) had the wrong amount of fuel loaded
    >> because they failed to convert gallons to litre (or vice versa).
    >
    > I think it was a confusion between pounds and kilograms actually and they
    > used the wrong specific gravity ( the pounds one ) for the kilograms
    > required.
    >

No, they didn't.


Fjuwkit.



Bertie

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 at 18:50:58 in message
<[email protected]>, Frank F. Matthews
<[email protected]> wrote:
    >http://www.gpiaa-portugal-report.com/
    >David CL Francis wrote:
    >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 00:06:13 in message
    >><[email protected]>, Stefan <stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote:
    >>>> If you have a better source of information let me know
    >>> The original poster cited the URL where you can read the official
    >>>report. You may or may not consider the official report a better source.
    >> I have an open mind about that last bit! Can you find that URL for
    >>me? I cannot locate it amongst the thread items that have not expired.
Thanks a lot, I have downloaded it and it is very interesting. Compared
to the Gimli glider they hit the ground very hard.
--
David CL Francis