Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dreamlifter lands at wrong airport....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
    Yeppers, Thanks Highkeas. I was watching it live as well. Looked like no problem-o.

    Rick.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      I blame automation.

      Had he been using the automation, it would not have happened!

      I have flown this aircraft a couple of times, it has all the goodies.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        Had he been using the automation, it would not have happened!

        I have flown this aircraft a couple of times, it has all the goodies.
        I agree... the magenta line NOT emanating from the runway should have been the first clue. The FMS showing 9 miles out when he's on short final should have been the second. But I'm going to leave it there, because sure as I go pointing fingers, I'll do something similar. I hope not, but I'm a firm believer in the phrase "there, but for the grace of God, go I."

        I'm glad they got the airplane out safely. On the other hand, it WOULD make a unique restaurant...

        I feel sorry for the guys who landed there though. They're doing more tap dancing than Sammy Davis Jr. and Shirley Temple right about now...
        The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
          I'm glad they got the airplane out safely. On the other hand, it WOULD make a unique restaurant...
          Possible names? The Lost Lifter. Jumbo's. [Add your ideas here]

          Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
          I feel sorry for the guys who landed there though. They're doing more tap dancing than Sammy Davis Jr. and Shirley Temple right about now...
          As a passenger, I sure don't. Given everything in the cockpit to make the job easier, this from the standpoint of a pax is inexcusable. While I'm glad the only thing injured is someone's ego, the possibilities for a considerably worse outcome (as everyone on this board knows better than most) would say to me that there're two individuals who should be looking for a new industry to ply their trade in. That they didn't realise even when down is the final nail in that proverbial coffin IMHO

          Arrow

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            Had he been using the automation, it would not have happened!

            I have flown this aircraft a couple of times, it has all the goodies.
            How long for the investigation to be ready you reckon?
            "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

            Comment


            • #21
              I've been following this since early this morning.

              I love it when he says a turbo prop just landed over them. They knew they were screwed at that point.

              This could have been horrendous. It is a freaking miracle that nobody was hurt. Kudos to the construction crew on this airport!

              Pilots: Should this crew be fired for mistaking a two lane road for an AFB?
              I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                I have flown this aircraft a couple of times, it has all the goodies.
                Like a wet-bar in the cockpit?

                I hope these guys manage to get more sleep in the future.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Can a heavy 744 like this actually reject near V1 on a 6000ft runway, or was this thing going no matter what?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    Can a heavy 744 like this actually reject near V1 on a 6000ft runway, or was this thing going no matter what?
                    This airplane didn't need to be much above its empty weight for this 8 minutes flight.

                    This airplane has an MTOW / emptu weight ratio of 2:1.
                    This means that, when empty, it will accelerate twice as fast to a V1, Vr and V2 that will be 40% slower than at MTOW.
                    The eventual reject would be from a speed a 40% slower too.
                    It can take-off (and reject) on a dime.

                    As a side note, it will climb like 7000FPM at TOGA and V2+10/20, but you'd not do that because you'd put the plane in an unusual attitude of 30° nose up or more.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      That is a career ender.
                      Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        This airplane didn't need to be much above its empty weight for this 8 minutes flight.
                        I imagine they defueled it but didn't unload the cargo. AFAIK the 744 requires an accelerate/stop distance of around 11,000ft at MTOW, and this thing is an obese 744, so, assuming there is cargo on board, this seems to be cutting it very close to say the least. I was just wondering if there are special circumstnaces like this one where the a/c would take off without a V1 provision.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          I was just wondering if there are special circumstances like this one where the a/c would take off without a V1 provision.
                          In the US you can get a "ferry permit" from the FAA that will authorize flying an aircraft under circumstances where flight normally would not be permitted - like with weight in excess of its maximum certificated takeoff weight.

                          See here: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rry_permit.pdf
                          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                          Eric Law

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            I imagine they defueled it but didn't unload the cargo. AFAIK the 744 requires an accelerate/stop distance of around 11,000ft at MTOW, and this thing is an obese 744, so, assuming there is cargo on board, this seems to be cutting it very close to say the least. I was just wondering if there are special circumstnaces like this one where the a/c would take off without a V1 provision.
                            Hmmm, I don't know.
                            First of all, I'm not so sure that the freight would not be unloaded.
                            Second, this airplane is designed to take very large, but not necessarily heavy, cargo. Like wing and fuselage sections.

                            Regarding your question, I don't know if there are circumstances where the plane would take off without a provision to reject a V1 (a case like this seems to be a good circumstance, or what do you do with an airplane stranded on the ground in a case like this?), but I know of circumstances where there is no provisions to continue after an engine failure past V1. The CD-10, for example, was allowed to take-off on 2 engines for a ferry flight with an engine disabled.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              I imagine they defueled it but didn't unload the cargo. AFAIK the 744 requires an accelerate/stop distance of around 11,000ft at MTOW, and this thing is an obese 744, so, assuming there is cargo on board, this seems to be cutting it very close to say the least. I was just wondering if there are special circumstnaces like this one where the a/c would take off without a V1 provision.
                              One additional thing, roughly speaking:

                              How much lighter needs a plane to be to reach V1 and Vr in half of the run?
                              29% lighter.

                              How much runway does a plane at empty wight needs to reach V1 and Vr, compared with the same plane at MTOW, if the empty weight is 50% of MTOW?
                              1/4 of what is needed at MTOW.

                              That's the power of combining reduced Vee speeds with increased acceleration, both thanks to the weight reduction.

                              Roughly, the distance is proportional to the weight squared.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                Second, this airplane is designed to take very large, but not necessarily heavy, cargo. Like wing and fuselage sections.
                                Indeed. Interestingly, the 747LCF has a lower MTOW and shorter MTOW runway requirement than the 747-400. I guess it's just a puffed-up illusion.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X