TomVexille
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2013
- Posts
- 11,087
What's the reason for HBA not using aerobridges....
Privatisation
What's the reason for HBA not using aerobridges....
The owners don’t want to spend the capital cost and the ongoing operating cost when the peasants have been used to walking across the apron in the wind in the rain for decades.What's the reason for HBA not using aerobridges....
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
Walking across to the plane from the terminal was always a delight in Cairo in the early 90's... in the midday sun... in the middle of summer!As a kid (mid 1970's - early 1980's) in the pre-aerobridge era I remember walking from the terminal across the tarmac to the aircraft steps in Singapore, KL, Auckland, Wellington, Hong Kong (Kai Tak), Papeete, etc.
The 380 is now a relatively old aircraft in terms of systems, but overall it was well thought out. In particular the way the flight controls worked with a mix of hydraulic and electric actuation was very impressive (and safe). Some systems that should have been simple (like the chillers) seemed to be designed in hell, but I expect that was a lesson learnt.@jb747 - what things did we get wrong with the A380? It would be interesting to get some feedback from someone who has obviously used what we created.
Is this why you see the “stirring of the pot”?One thing that always bugged me (and I expect it's across all Airbus) is the way the flight controls behaved in the flare. At 100' it would switch to 'flare law', which was basically direct law in pitch, but it remained in normal law in roll. The upshot of that was that whilst you could get nice linear pitch control, making small roll corrections was difficult, with it seemingly giving a minimum change of about 2º. I'd have preferred it to be in direct for roll too. This is relevant to landings in crosswinds, especially.
No. That's actually something you see on Boeing videos too. Basically putting an input in, but either not giving the aircraft a chance to actually react, or getting out of phase with the required inputs. The longer the wing, the more of an issue the apparent delay in any roll response becomes.Is this why you see the “stirring of the pot”?
Yes it is. What happened today was pretty much textbook in the sim. Engine severe damage at V1 and then come back around, and land.I was wondering with QF 520 and today's, Nov 8, engine failure is it a real life example of what you practice in the simulator?
I don't know what happen after but would you expect the following planes that were to land or takeoff on the same runway to wait or divert until the runway is checked ?
I'm not answering your question, but in relation to that report :Yes, my sarcasm at the animation missed the mark. I assumed the MSFS in the title was obvious.
Moreover I should have been clearer in my actual question given it was a real world incident. Sorry.
I’m genuinely curious about the late go around given the 767 crew wasn’t visual.
Do the usual instruments that indicate aircraft nearby work during the approach?
Would the crew have had anything else to go on besides the controller’s calls and seeing the 737 as they became visual?
US NTSB releases preliminary report on Austin near-miss
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued a preliminary report of a near-miss involving a Fedex Boeing 777-300ER and a Southwest Airlines 737 in Austin last month.www.flightglobal.com
It was, but so many times I've seen those simulations taken as being factual.Yes, my sarcasm at the animation missed the mark. I assumed the MSFS in the title was obvious.
If they weren't visual then there is nothing in the coughpit that will have told them where the other aircraft is. And why was an aircraft allowed on to the runway? That will affect the quality of the ILS. You do get the strangest landing clearances in the USA. You're miles from the airport, an entire fleet of aircraft is in front of you, and you're cleared to land. Complete b/s, that happens nowhere else. If a controller in the UK or Oz says you're cleared to land, then the runway is actually clear.I’m genuinely curious about the late go around given the 767 crew wasn’t visual.
TCAS. It probably won't detect the other aircraft until it becomes airborne, and even then you're low, so it's going to have some warnings inhibited.Do the usual instruments that indicate aircraft nearby work during the approach?
Not really.Would the crew have had anything else to go on besides the controller’s calls and seeing the 737 as they became visual?
In that case the engine out procedure will include a turn, though not necessarily the one normally done. Clean up/acceleration won't commence until the turn is complete. This sort of turning procedure is common, and the actions you will follow make up part of every take off briefing.I note the QF520 continued the runway heading on climb out.
What happens if it’s say Runway 15 Departure from Cairns with a failure after V1? They have that sharp left bank after takeoff to avoid all that terrain ahead.
Yep. That’s exactly what we would fly too on 34L/R.I note the QF520 continued the runway heading on climb out.
What happens if it’s say Runway 15 Departure from Cairns with a failure after V1? They have that sharp left bank after takeoff to avoid all that terrain ahead.
Well, as the Captain, if you feel like declaring a mayday, you can do whatever you like. But, airlines like standardisation. We've practiced these departures and cleanups innumerable times. We know that they work, in all weather conditions. They plug straight in to the procedures we use day in and out.I've been flying in and out of Cairns for over 50 years now and I'm pretty sure that we used to occasionally depart from 15 straight down the coastal corridor between the Bellenden Ker and Murray Prior ranges, given the weather conditions being suitable. There is only a slight jink in the valley before the terrain opens up at Cowley. No sharp left turn required and no possible late turn concerns.
It would probably take more than a paragraph to explain this, but, it mostly comes back to the way that the departure numbers are calculated. After a certain point, adding extra available length does not change the power required, or the Vspeeds. So, even though it seems like wasted runway, it wouldn't actually be of any use.On another CNS matter. It's not that long ago that intersection departures used to be the exception. Not any longer. I'm always happier to turn right and back-track a bit for the extra four or five hundred metres.
This bit I follow. The theory at least.After a certain point, adding extra available length does not change the power required, or the Vspeeds. So, even though it seems like wasted runway, it wouldn't actually be of any use.