Search results

Ramp down and loadmaster talking to the pilots. Common operation in the military.

Note that the description of the hydraulic system and computers does not apply to the A350 or A380.

Not really. It might get you a better derate, but beyond that it would just be a guess.

Even if you don't exceed the structural limits, this has the potential to duplicate QF72.....and that hurt quite a few people. I'm actually more interested though, in the difference between the older software and the new. I'm sure we'll never find out, but generally you'd expect newer to be...

Well, as it completely grounds flights (with the exception of non passenger ferry flights) there’s obviously no flight risk…as they aren’t allowed to fly.

Or quality of maintenance..i.e not bothering to do updates. To me this smells of software that was updated to fix an issue, and then a subsequent update removed it. Presumably all will eventually be revealed.

Computer….flying normally, flying normally, flying normally, [radiation arrives], stalled, stalled, “full forward stick to unstall”, oops. QF 72 2008.

Interesting, if true. I’m just talking to an Airbus engineer (in Germany) to get a bit more detail about exactly what happens. It seems that the box may have to be removed for the the data upload to take place. The box change is simple and quick. But the limitation will probably be the...

North Island NZ in March. Tasmania in October. I’m considering Athens in November.

I think it’s up to the individual operators. As a pilot, you’d barely notice them. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there saying how terrible, and what a safety risk, but they’re the ones who say no to everything. I used to do it occasionally, and the airline reaction was basically don’t...

Rich criminals get away with it. It's only poor people who are taken to task.

It will say “I was great” many times on each page.

That’s because the 787 is an accountant’s dream. Not yours.

Nothing out of the ordinary. A big jack and away you go. Lots of wheel bolts though. It's an issue if the aircraft has flown recently, as there's massive amounts of heat in the brakes. I can't say that I've seen it done whilst loading is happening. Before or after, as it's not particularly time...

Is there any physical difference, or just a tick in the box, and the engineers select a new rating? Has the -10 gotten any closer? They missed the cutoff for the EICAS requirement, and last I heard were not granted an exemption or extension.

The chances are that it was nowhere near full throttle. In the 380 we could go as low as 60%. Full charge was relatively rare. Modern engines are quiet across the board. That's a pretty much unfixable issue with the 737. It doesn't use containerised luggage. Boeing would have been so much...

Well, at one extreme you could kill everyone on board. Of course the chance of that is miniscule, but I doubt that many people would consider it reasonable for random people to be making that sort of decision. And at the other end, you'll be in breach of a cabin crew directive, and that could...

You don’t need blades breaking to cause this. I’ll bet it was a perfectly healthy engine.

As a general rule, cabin crew know very little about aircraft and aviation, so you do need care in just what you say. But, I’m more interested in the windscreen. I don’t see a failure of an outer layer as requiring a descent at all.

They generally don’t like being called lackeys. Airlines don’t keep pilots on airport standby. If they do have a standby at all (QF long haul does, but not short haul), they’ll be at home, with something in the order of a 3 hours airborne requirement. The reason is simple. If they come to work...