The Virtual Pub

Come Inside... => Petrol/Diesel/Red Diesel/Aviation Fuel Head Zone => Topic started by: Nick on February 20, 2016, 03:30:10 PM

Title: Yikes
Post by: Nick on February 20, 2016, 03:30:10 PM
The official version

http://www.airlive.net/live-british-airways-dreamliner-ba33-to-kuala-lumpur-is-returning-to-heathrow/ (http://www.airlive.net/live-british-airways-dreamliner-ba33-to-kuala-lumpur-is-returning-to-heathrow/)

My nephew was on the flight

One of the doors blew out  scared2: scared2: scared2: scared2:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: apc2010 on February 20, 2016, 03:33:39 PM
The official version

[url]http://www.airlive.net/live-british-airways-dreamliner-ba33-to-kuala-lumpur-is-returning-to-heathrow/[/url] ([url]http://www.airlive.net/live-british-airways-dreamliner-ba33-to-kuala-lumpur-is-returning-to-heathrow/[/url])

My nephew was on the flight

One of the doors blew out  scared2: scared2: scared2: scared2:


 eeek:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Barman on February 20, 2016, 03:37:58 PM

(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs21.postimg.org%2Fhmgj7l8wj%2Faaaaardvark.jpg&hash=b151b08e7cb4199f3325618261dd5858) (http://postimg.org/image/hmgj7l8wj/)

I wonder if he used to fly Lancasters...?  rubschin:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: The Moan Ranger (Orderer of the Youngs) on February 20, 2016, 08:13:27 PM
At Gatwick they are known as BinLiners or Screamliners. They're shit. Ask Thomson or Norwegian - both of whom have some and both of whom have considerably more problems with them than they have with the rest of their fleet.

There is a phrase - "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!". No-one says it much anymore.

Airbus all the way  :thumbsup:

Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on February 20, 2016, 08:40:16 PM
At Gatwick they are known as BinLiners or Screamliners. They're shit. Ask Thomson or Norwegian - both of whom have some and both of whom have considerably more problems with them than they have with the rest of their fleet.

There is a phrase - "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!". No-one says it much anymore.

Airbus all the way  :thumbsup:
So I shouldn't have booked a long haul flight on one you say  scared2:

Too fucking late now
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: The Moan Ranger (Orderer of the Youngs) on February 20, 2016, 08:49:10 PM
At Gatwick they are known as BinLiners or Screamliners. They're shit. Ask Thomson or Norwegian - both of whom have some and both of whom have considerably more problems with them than they have with the rest of their fleet.

There is a phrase - "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!". No-one says it much anymore.

Airbus all the way  :thumbsup:
So I shouldn't have booked a long haul flight on one you say  scared2:

Too fucking late now

They haven't fallen out of the sky so don't worry.

Airbus achieve a 99.6% take-off rate - so only 4 in 1000 fail to get in the air for a technical reason. BinLiners only achieve 95% - 50 in 1,000. That's a BIG difference and hugely costly to the airlines. Parked up in the remote stands is an Airbus A340 which Boeing pay for on behalf of Norwegian as a spare to use when their BinLiners go wrong. Norwegian SPECIFICALLY insisted on an Airbus. That must really hurt Boeing  point:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Barman on February 20, 2016, 08:58:03 PM
At Gatwick they are known as BinLiners or Screamliners. They're shit. Ask Thomson or Norwegian - both of whom have some and both of whom have considerably more problems with them than they have with the rest of their fleet.

There is a phrase - "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!". No-one says it much anymore.

Airbus all the way  :thumbsup:
So I shouldn't have booked a long haul flight on one you say  scared2:

Too fucking late now

They haven't fallen out of the sky so don't worry.

Airbus achieve a 99.6% take-off rate - so only 4 in 1000 fail to get in the air for a technical reason. BinLiners only achieve 95% - 50 in 1,000. That's a BIG difference and hugely costly to the airlines. Parked up in the remote stands is an Airbus A340 which Boeing pay for on behalf of Norwegian as a spare to use when their BinLiners go wrong. Norwegian SPECIFICALLY insisted on an Airbus. That must really hurt Boeing  point:

 lol: lol: lol:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on February 20, 2016, 09:22:55 PM
At Gatwick they are known as BinLiners or Screamliners. They're shit. Ask Thomson or Norwegian - both of whom have some and both of whom have considerably more problems with them than they have with the rest of their fleet.

There is a phrase - "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!". No-one says it much anymore.

Airbus all the way  :thumbsup:
So I shouldn't have booked a long haul flight on one you say  scared2:

Too fucking late now

They haven't fallen out of the sky so don't worry.

Airbus achieve a 99.6% take-off rate - so only 4 in 1000 fail to get in the air for a technical reason. BinLiners only achieve 95% - 50 in 1,000. That's a BIG difference and hugely costly to the airlines. Parked up in the remote stands is an Airbus A340 which Boeing pay for on behalf of Norwegian as a spare to use when their BinLiners go wrong. Norwegian SPECIFICALLY insisted on an Airbus. That must really hurt Boeing  point:

 lol: lol: lol:
lol: lol: lol: lol:

But A340s are crap too.  AirBus's biggest failure.  Too slow and too thirsty

Hopefully Virgin Binliners from Thiefrow in November will be OK.  I had heard reliability was much better after that dreadful first year
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: The Moan Ranger (Orderer of the Youngs) on February 20, 2016, 09:36:51 PM
At Gatwick they are known as BinLiners or Screamliners. They're shit. Ask Thomson or Norwegian - both of whom have some and both of whom have considerably more problems with them than they have with the rest of their fleet.

There is a phrase - "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!". No-one says it much anymore.

Airbus all the way  :thumbsup:
So I shouldn't have booked a long haul flight on one you say  scared2:

Too fucking late now

They haven't fallen out of the sky so don't worry.

Airbus achieve a 99.6% take-off rate - so only 4 in 1000 fail to get in the air for a technical reason. BinLiners only achieve 95% - 50 in 1,000. That's a BIG difference and hugely costly to the airlines. Parked up in the remote stands is an Airbus A340 which Boeing pay for on behalf of Norwegian as a spare to use when their BinLiners go wrong. Norwegian SPECIFICALLY insisted on an Airbus. That must really hurt Boeing  point:

 lol: lol: lol:
lol: lol: lol: lol:

But A340s are crap too.  AirBus's biggest failure.  Too slow and too thirsty

Hopefully Virgin Binliners from Thiefrow in November will be OK.  I had heard reliability was much better after that dreadful first year

A340-300's are thirsty and there is no reason to have them over a A330-300. The A340-600's have huge capacity that offsets the thirst. Regardless of thirst, they are far more reliable than BinLiners. Boeing is paying, Norwegian don't care.
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on February 20, 2016, 10:06:04 PM
I have a personal reason to hate A340s. 

They had a design flaw.  Those folding loo doors used to have the fold edges fit flush (Boeing have always had them chamfered) so I goes for a leak ad pushes the door shut to find all the high nerve density soft flesh on my right hand trapped in the fold.  I've had all sorts of painful experiences but that one was possibly the worst. 

I shall report back about BinLiners in November
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: apc2010 on February 20, 2016, 11:40:00 PM
I have a personal reason to hate A340s. 

They had a design flaw.  Those folding loo doors used to have the fold edges fit flush (Boeing have always had them chamfered) so I goes for a leak ad pushes the door shut to find all the high nerve density soft flesh on my right hand trapped in the fold.  I've had all sorts of painful experiences but that one was possibly the worst. 

I shall report back about BinLiners in November

Or not ..... whistle:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Barman on February 21, 2016, 07:05:18 AM
I have a personal reason to hate A340s. 

They had a design flaw.  Those folding loo doors used to have the fold edges fit flush (Boeing have always had them chamfered) so I goes for a leak ad pushes the door shut to find all the high nerve density soft flesh on my right hand trapped in the fold.  I've had all sorts of painful experiences but that one was possibly the worst. 

I shall report back about BinLiners in November

Or not ..... whistle:

 lol: lol: lol:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on February 21, 2016, 10:55:57 AM
I have a personal reason to hate A340s. 

They had a design flaw.  Those folding loo doors used to have the fold edges fit flush (Boeing have always had them chamfered) so I goes for a leak ad pushes the door shut to find all the high nerve density soft flesh on my right hand trapped in the fold.  I've had all sorts of painful experiences but that one was possibly the worst. 

I shall report back about BinLiners in November

Or not ..... whistle:

 lol: lol: lol:
scared2:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: The Moan Ranger (Orderer of the Youngs) on February 22, 2016, 11:38:32 AM
Dreamliner engine failure.

https://twitter.com/flightradar24
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on February 22, 2016, 12:10:44 PM
Dreamliner engine failure.

https://twitter.com/flightradar24
scared2: scared2:

Cue "if the other one fails we'll be up here all day" reruns?
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Nick on February 28, 2016, 09:25:54 AM
https://www.facebook.com/123984714320484/videos/1008026919249588/?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/123984714320484/videos/1008026919249588/?fref=nf)
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Barman on February 28, 2016, 11:27:37 AM
https://www.facebook.com/123984714320484/videos/1008026919249588/?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/123984714320484/videos/1008026919249588/?fref=nf)

It's an advert... ::)
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Nick on February 28, 2016, 11:28:08 AM
 redface:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2016, 11:30:56 AM
https://www.facebook.com/123984714320484/videos/1008026919249588/?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/123984714320484/videos/1008026919249588/?fref=nf)

It's an advert... ::)
It's a good one though
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Nick on February 28, 2016, 11:32:00 AM
That's Cyprus Air for you noooo:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2016, 11:35:00 AM
That's Cyprus Air for you noooo:
Saves paying landing fees
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Barman on February 28, 2016, 11:37:42 AM
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2016, 12:57:01 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bti8scCbqic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
:thumbsup:

Those Dutch eh.   Wacky bacyy, waccy ads and never ever put one of their caps on your bonce.
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: The Moan Ranger (Orderer of the Youngs) on April 08, 2016, 02:12:58 PM
http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/ (http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/)

 whistle:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on April 08, 2016, 02:19:08 PM
[url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url] ([url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url])

 whistle:
You're a mean nasty man TMR  ;)

Still they've got seven months to fix it proper like (piece of gaffer tape over the Pitot tube)

Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Darwins Selection on April 08, 2016, 03:33:14 PM
[url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url] ([url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url])

 whistle:


I would have thought "An unrealistic, sudden drop in displayed airspeed at high actual airspeed. would have been coped with by common sense in the pilot, who presumably notice that they are not squashed against the window by an instantaneous deceleration of several hundred miles per hour?

The fact that they need it written down as a procedure worries me much more,

Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Barman on April 08, 2016, 03:34:39 PM
[url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url] ([url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url])

 whistle:


I would have thought "An unrealistic, sudden drop in displayed airspeed at high actual airspeed. would have been coped with by common sense in the pilot, who presumably notice that they are not squashed against the window by an instantaneous deceleration of several hundred miles per hour?

The fact that they need it written down as a procedure worries me much more,


 lol: lol: lol:
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on April 08, 2016, 06:12:07 PM
[url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url] ([url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url])

 whistle:


I would have thought "An unrealistic, sudden drop in displayed airspeed at high actual airspeed. would have been coped with by common sense in the pilot, who presumably notice that they are not squashed against the window by an instantaneous deceleration of several hundred miles per hour?

The fact that they need it written down as a procedure worries me much more,

 Or a microburst
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Darwins Selection on April 08, 2016, 07:18:34 PM
[url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url] ([url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url])

 whistle:


I would have thought "An unrealistic, sudden drop in displayed airspeed at high actual airspeed. would have been coped with by common sense in the pilot, who presumably notice that they are not squashed against the window by an instantaneous deceleration of several hundred miles per hour?

The fact that they need it written down as a procedure worries me much more,

 Or a microburst

A microburst will cause a sudden change in altitude but not airspeed.
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on April 08, 2016, 08:33:02 PM
[url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url] ([url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url])

 whistle:


I would have thought "An unrealistic, sudden drop in displayed airspeed at high actual airspeed. would have been coped with by common sense in the pilot, who presumably notice that they are not squashed against the window by an instantaneous deceleration of several hundred miles per hour?

The fact that they need it written down as a procedure worries me much more,

 Or a microburst

A microburst will cause a sudden change in altitude but not airspeed.

But it's indicated airspeed they're talking about and a microburst screws that a treat
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Darwins Selection on April 08, 2016, 09:29:35 PM
[url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url] ([url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url])

 whistle:


I would have thought "An unrealistic, sudden drop in displayed airspeed at high actual airspeed. would have been coped with by common sense in the pilot, who presumably notice that they are not squashed against the window by an instantaneous deceleration of several hundred miles per hour?

The fact that they need it written down as a procedure worries me much more,

 Or a microburst

A microburst will cause a sudden change in altitude but not airspeed.

But it's indicated airspeed they're talking about and a microburst screws that a treat

Unless things have changed, a microburst will produce a brief, transient increase in indicated airspeed, not a sustained decrease of the kind described.
Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on April 08, 2016, 11:14:15 PM
[url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url] ([url]http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2016/04/06/faa-issues-directive-on-boeing-787-flight-control-issue/[/url])

 whistle:


I would have thought "An unrealistic, sudden drop in displayed airspeed at high actual airspeed. would have been coped with by common sense in the pilot, who presumably notice that they are not squashed against the window by an instantaneous deceleration of several hundred miles per hour?

The fact that they need it written down as a procedure worries me much more,

 Or a microburst

A microburst will cause a sudden change in altitude but not airspeed.

But it's indicated airspeed they're talking about and a microburst screws that a treat

Unless things have changed, a microburst will produce a brief, transient increase in indicated airspeed, not a sustained decrease of the kind described.

Microbursts cause both increases and decreases in IAS

And the sustained aspect is irrelevant if the pilot reacts to the initial indicated drop.  And that's what the warning is concerned about.  Pushing the aircraft beyond structural limits (in common parlance the wings breaking) by reacting to increase IAS when it was already enough.

Title: Re: Yikes
Post by: Steve on November 09, 2016, 10:04:25 AM
At Gatwick they are known as BinLiners or Screamliners. They're shit. Ask Thomson or Norwegian - both of whom have some and both of whom have considerably more problems with them than they have with the rest of their fleet.

There is a phrase - "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!". No-one says it much anymore.

Airbus all the way  :thumbsup:
Well Dream/Screamliner were OK

Live TV through the flight and it arrived early. Apart from that it's just another plane really