|
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by civilservant
(Post 13028896)
That is one thing I don't really understand... I love a goof flight sim, and enjoy jumping in and doing short hops in an airline or using something aerobatic to see the sights in different, places but I don't see what's fun about flying a long haul route any more than I do with being an actual pilot flying a long haul route. Or you're doing is monitoring (in this case the computer simulating the aircraft, in reality the aircraft)
If you are on another computer, performing another task, are you really playing? No, you're waiting for something to happen. I don't see the fun. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 13028927)
It's basically a simulated commercial flight but without fare paying passengers (usually airline employees playing the role of passenger.) that an airline has to do when they receive a completely new aircraft type, going to begin ETOPS operations or something new they have not done before, so they can get approval for new aircraft type, ETOPS or such.
When Southwest was working on getting ETOPS approved to fly to Hawaii they had to do the same, since they were not ETOPS approved nor had they ever operated long over ocean flights at that point. Southwest, Jetblue before they expanded to include over ocean flights, they had no need for ETOPS as they never ventured far enough form land to need it. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 13029090)
Interesting! In light of all our discussions about Climate Change, they should at least cram the plane full of cargo to make use of that fuel!
I don't know if they can take revenue cargo, but if they could would be a way to offset some of the cost of the proving runs. Not really a day where a big airline isn't flying empty planes somewhere, be it for maintenance, or repositioning or some other reason. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 13029391)
I don't know if they can take revenue cargo, but if they could would be a way to offset some of the cost of the proving runs.
Not really a day where a big airline isn't flying empty planes somewhere, be it for maintenance, or repositioning or some other reason. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 13019215)
Seems it may have been a maintenance oops. Rumor online is maintenance was doing a solenoid gear up test and put the nosewheel pin into the wrong hole.
|
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 13029408)
I imagine there are some specialized traders who try to match spare cargo capacity with people needing stuff moved around? I know FedEx and UPS have their own planes, but I could also imagine them having a deal with other airlines to use them if they have space.
I am not familiar with the new A321's that can do these longer over ocean flights, not sure what their payload is once passengers, fuel, and bags are accounted for. The JFK flights I used to work from Vancouver often weight restricted so we rarely loaded any cargo on those flights, they were usually 737-800's, Atlanta could finicky too sometimes. Alaska took a fair chunk of cargo on their 737 Vancouver to Seattle flights, lots of passengers usually, but so little fuel was needed, they could really fill the belly up with cargo. I don't think Alaska has 737's on the route anymore though, Alaska has steadily downsized Vancouver over the years, hard to believe today that in late 1990's to 2003 ish, Alaska almost had a miniature hub in Vancouver. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by markonline1
(Post 13029409)
That rumour has been confirmed by the AAIB. Turns out there were 2 techs. One knew which hole it went in, one didn’t. Unfortunately, the tech that knew was too short to reach so asked the tech that didn’t know to do it, and he chose his hole unwisely. When a diagnostic check was run on the gear, it retracted LOL. I can just imagine the guy in the cockpits heart sinking as the planes nose lowered itself down onto the ramp.
Basically what happened when I was with America West and we had a 757 fall on its nose, a pin was either incorrectly placed or someone had forgotten, I can't remember the specifics it was like 20 years ago now. |
Re: Planespotting II
Juan has a good video up on the ditching/crash in Hawaii, includes some NTSB photos underwater.
|
Re: Planespotting II
Can't believe it's been 25 years.
TWA 800 JFK to Paris bound 747-100 exploded shortly after departure killing all 230 people onboard. There will be a private memorial gathering for the family tonight on Long Island. The wreckage has been in a hangar in Virginia where the NTSB has used it for training purposes, but will begin dismantling and destroying it in the coming weeks. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/17/polit...ial/index.html |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 13030408)
Can't believe it's been 25 years.
TWA 800 JFK to Paris bound 747-100 exploded shortly after departure killing all 230 people onboard. There will be a private memorial gathering for the family tonight on Long Island. The wreckage has been in a hangar in Virginia where the NTSB has used it for training purposes, but will begin dismantling and destroying it in the coming weeks. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/17/polit...ial/index.html I remember that so well. We were in the car driving home in NJ on I-80. I turned around to speak to my daughter and through the back window, saw what looked like a rocket in the distance. I mentioned it to hubby at the time. When we got home we heard about TWA 800. |
Re: Planespotting II
|
Re: Planespotting II
That's awful. A likely stroke by the sound of it. She sounded flaky at the call-back too.
|
Re: Planespotting II
I was thinking possibly a stroke or something medical before she even left the ground, she didn't sound great. Reported to have been 74 years old, and had flown that plane for over a decade, so doesn't sound like she was inexperienced.
Fortunately the house was empty at the time of the crash.
Originally Posted by steveq
(Post 13030463)
That's awful. A likely stroke by the sound of it. She sounded flaky at the call-back too.
|
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by steveq
(Post 13030463)
That's awful. A likely stroke by the sound of it. She sounded flaky at the call-back too.
Ok, I’ve just opened the video link and read the comments. Jeeeeeeez. So tempted to reply to some of those comments, but I do quite enjoy my job. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 13030411)
I remember that so well. We were in the car driving home in NJ on I-80. I turned around to speak to my daughter and through the back window, saw what looked like a rocket in the distance. I mentioned it to hubby at the time. When we got home we heard about TWA 800.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 1:20 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.