Jump to content


Donating Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


W5 last won the day on July 21 2014

W5 had the most liked content!


40 Excellent

1 Follower

About W5

  • Birthday 09/06/1951

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Edmonton, AB

Recent Profile Visitors

5,236 profile views
  1. Of course retardant doesn't usually get put right on the fire. In California (and some other states) the lead plane will use coloured smoke to indicate where you should drop. Here are a series of DC-10 firefighting videos: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watching-this-dc-10-fire-retardant-drop-run-will-make-y-1634763423 In Canada the birddog officer will ask for a specific placement.
  2. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/from-auld-scotia-to-nova-scotia.25489512 From auld Scotia to Nova Scotia Friday 3 October 2014 LOW-COST Canadian carrier WestJet is to launch its first UK route with direct, daily flights between Glasgow Airport and Halifax from next year. The service will launch next summer and is the airline's second transatlantic venture. In June it launched a daily summer service between Dublin and Newfoundland, but Glasgow will be its only other European destination. The inaugural non-stop flight to Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia, will depart from Glasgow on May 30 and will fly daily until October 24. Seats go on sale today, with prices starting about £170 one-way, including taxes. Journey time to Halifax is five hours 15 minutes and will be operated by a 136-seat Boeing 737-700. Passengers will be able to connect to Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and 16 other cities in WestJet's Canadian network. The airline also operates flights to destinations across mainland America, as well as to Hawaii, Mexico and the Caribbean. The launch will boost Glasgow Airport's status as Scotland's leading long-haul airport, currently serving 15 destinations in North America, Mexico, the Caribbean and the Middle East. In addition, 60 per cent of passengers flying from Glasgow to Reykjavik with Icelandair connect to North America. In recognition of the strong cultural and historic ties between Scotland and Nova Scotia the inaugural flight will be numbered WS30, in reference to St Andrew's Day. Mike Cantlay, chairman of ­tourism agency VisitScotland, said: "Canada and Nova Scotia, in particular, represent an exciting diaspora stronghold and a fantastic opportunity for Scottish tourism. "Some 4.7 million Canadians have Scottish ancestry, with 24 per cent of them wanting to visit Scotland in search of those roots. "The new WestJet route presents a sizeable opportunity to tap into an ancestral market worth up to £450 million over the next five years." Amanda McMillan, managing director of Glasgow Airport, said it was fantastic news. She added: "WestJet is an ambitious airline with an extensive route network and we are delighted it has chosen Glasgow as its first UK destination. "Scotland has always enjoyed a close relationship with Canada and the daily service to Halifax will provide our customers with greater choice and also further strengthen our long haul connectivity." Scottish Transport Minister Keith Brown said: "Our two countries have close cultural and historic ties and this new service will help strengthen these important bonds. "I outlined the benefits of ­establishing routes like this when I met representatives of Halifax Stanfield International Airport during my visit to Canada last year and I am sure it will prove popular and successful." Mr Brown said even more direct flights would come to Scotland if Westminster devolved control over Air Passenger Duty, which the Scottish Government is keen to axe. Gordon Matheson, leader of Glasgow City Council, said: "There will undoubtedly be strong demand for this service, which has huge potential to deliver significant inbound leisure tourism. "Canada is Glasgow's second largest international market, with 37,000 trips made each year by Canadian visitors who generate £12m for the city's economy."
  3. You too can have your real live checkout Mitch: http://www.stallion51.com/
  4. I only have that problem when using Internet Explorer as a browser, not any of the others.
  5. Map of a Tragedy The Wall Street Journal catalogued and mapped some of the debris of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which fell across three Ukrainian villages after the Boeing 777 was brought down on July 17, allegedly by a surface-to-air missile. http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/
  6. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28460625 A passenger plane carrying 116 people is feared to have crashed on a flight from Burkina Faso to the Algerian capital Algiers. Contact with the Air Algerie flight was lost over the Sahara as it crossed Mali in bad weather, officials said. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the plane, which has 51 French citizens aboard, "probably crashed". French media reported that soldiers had found wreckage in Tilemsi, central Mali, but this was not confirmed. Reuters quoted Mali's President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita as saying that wreckage had been found much further east, between Aguelhoc and Kidal. Contact with Flight AH 5017, chartered from Spanish airline Swiftair, was lost about 50 minutes after take-off from Ouagadougou, Air Algerie said. The pilot had contacted Niger's control tower in Niamey to change course because of a sandstorm, officials say. Speaking in Paris, Mr Fabius said: "Despite intensive search efforts no trace of the aircraft has yet been found. The plane probably crashed." He said two French Mirage fighter planes were scouring the area. French President Francois Hollande cancelled a planned visit overseas and said every effort was being made to find the plane. "The search will take as long as needed," he told reporters. Earlier, an Algerian official told Reuters that the plane had crashed, but gave no further details. France's civil aviation body said crisis centres had been set up at airports in Paris and Marseille. Burkina Faso authorities said the passenger list comprised 27 people from Burkina Faso, 51 French, eight Lebanese, six Algerians, two from Luxembourg, five Canadians, four Germans, one Cameroonian, one Belgian, one Egyptian, one Ukrainian, one Swiss, one Nigerian and one Malian. The six crew members are Spanish, according to the Spanish pilots' union. UN troops in Mali say they understand the plane came down between Gao and Tessalit, the BBC's Alex Duval Smith in the Malian capital Bamako reports.She says the search area is vast, with few roads, and there is rebel activity. Added to that, sandstorms make visibility in the Sahara poor for at least a day, she adds. "In keeping with procedures, Air Algerie has launched its emergency plan," Air Algerie officials, quoted by APS news agency (in French), said. Algerian Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sellal reportedly told Algerian radio: "The plane disappeared at Gao (in Mali), 500km (300 miles) from the Algerian border." Burkina Faso Transport Minister Jean Bertin Ouedraogo said the plane sent its last message at around 01:30 GMT, asking air traffic controllers in Niger to change its route because of bad weather. l In a statement (in Spanish), Swiftair said that the aircraft was a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 and that they were unable to establish contact with it.An Algerian official had previously told Reuters that the plane was an Airbus A320. An unnamed Air Algerie company source, speaking to AFP news agency, said: "The plane was not far from the Algerian frontier when the crew was asked to make a detour because of poor visibility and to prevent the risk of collision with another aircraft on the Algiers-Bamako route." "Contact was lost after the change of course." Flight AH 5017 flies the Ouagadougou-Algiers route four times a week, AFP reported.
  7. http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/24/mh-17-puncture-marks/ Evidence of shrapnel damage to the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 has emerged from images taken at the crash site.Photos taken at the MH17 crash site clearly show shrapnel signs on various parts of the wreckage of the Boeing 777 shot down over eastern Ukraine while en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with 298 people on board. Among all the images published on media outlets from all around the world, the one first published by Financial Times over the past weekend, struck our attention. The piece of wreckage, reportedly measuring 1 mt sq, has a couple of distinctive features that may help the identification: the colored stripes of the Malaysia Airlines livery and the bolts of the cockpit side windshield. Based on these details, with the help of our contributor Giuliano Ranieri, we were able to identify the piece as a chunk of front fuselage located next to the cockpit (slightly below it), on the left hand side of the plane. The piece has several burn marks, a large central hole and several smaller punture marks surrouding it. The edges of the small holes seem to be bent outwards, evidence of something that got out of the skin from the inside of the plane. This is a sign the missile, most probably fired by an SA-11 system according to almost all reports to date, equipped with aproximity fuse, detonated on the right side of the aircraft not too far from the nose, scattering several fragments of shrapnel so fast that they traversed the plane from side to side: they entered through the right side of the airframe and got out from the left one. Furthermore, considering the amount of puncture marks concentrated at the base of the cockpit window’s we can assume both pilots were invested by high speed, hot shrapnels that most probably did not give them time to realize what was going on.
  8. A pretty good summary: Automation Myths: Do Planes Really Fly Themselves?http://www.nycaviation.com/2014/07/automation-myths-planes-really-fly/#.U87jvuNdXNl Air travel has always been rich with conspiracy theories, urban legends, and old wives’ tales. I’ve heard it all. Nothing, however, gets me sputtering more than the myths and exaggerations about cockpit automation—this pervasive idea that modern aircraft are flown by computer, with pilots on hand merely as a backup in case of trouble. The press and pundits repeat this garbage constantly, and millions of people actually believe it. In some not-too-distant future, we’re told, pilots will be engineered out of the picture altogether. This is so laughably far from reality that it’s hard to get my arms around it and begin to explain how the idea even arose, yet it amazes me how often this contention turns up—in magazines, on television, in the science section of the papers. Perhaps people are so gullible because they simply don’t know any better. Flying is mysterious, and information is hard to come by. If the “experts” say automatic planes are possible, then why not? But one thing you’ll notice is that these experts tend to be academics—professors, researchers, etc.—rather than pilots. Many of these people, however intelligent and however valuable their work might be, are highly unfamiliar with the day-to-day operational aspects of flying planes. Pilots too are guilty. “Aw, shucks, this plane practically lands itself,” one of us might say. We’re often our own worst enemies, enamored of gadgetry and, in our attempts to explain complicated procedures to the layperson, given to dumbing down. We wind up painting a caricature of what flying is really like and in the process undercut the value of our profession. Essentially, high-tech cockpit equipment assists pilots in the way that high-tech medical equipment assists physicians and surgeons. It has vastly improved their capabilities, but it by no means diminishes the experience and skill required to perform at that level and has not come remotely close to rendering them redundant. A plane is as able to fly itself about as much as the modern operating room can perform an operation by itself. “Talk about medical progress, and people think about technology,” wrote the surgeon and author Atul Gawande in a 2011 issue of The New Yorker. “But the capabilities of doctors matter every bit as much as the technology. This is true of all professions. What ultimately makes the difference is how well people use technology.” That about nails it. And what do terms like “automatic” and “autopilot” mean anyway? Typically I click off the autopilot around a thousand feet or so and hand-fly the rest of the landing. On takeoff, I fly manually at least through 10,000 feet, and sometimes all the way up to cruise. The autopilot is a tool, along with many other tools available to the crew. You still need to tell it what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. I prefer the term autoflight system. It’s a collection of several different functions controlling speed, thrust, and both horizontal and vertical navigation—together or separately, and all of it requiring regular crew inputs to work properly. On the jet I fly, I can set up an automatic climb or descent any of about six different ways, depending what’s needed. The media will quote supposed experts saying things like “pilots fly manually for only about ninety seconds of every flight.” Not only is this untrue, but it also neglects to impart any meaningful understanding as to the differences between manual and automatic, as if the latter were as simple as pressing a button and folding your arms. One evening I was sitting in economy class when our jet came in for an unusually smooth landing. “Nice job, autopilot!” yelled some knucklehead behind me. Amusing, maybe, but wrong. It was a fully manual touchdown, as the vast majority of touchdowns are. Yes, it’s true that most jetliners are certified for automatic landings, called “autolands” in pilot-speak. But in practice they are rare. Fewer than 1 percent of landings are performed automatically, and the fine print of setting up and managing one of these landings is something I could talk about all day. If it were as easy as pressing a button, I wouldn’t need to practice them twice a year in the simulator or periodically review those tabbed, highlighted pages in my manuals. In a lot of respects, automatic landings are more work-intensive than those performed by hand. The technology is there if you need it for that foggy arrival in Buenos Aires with the visibility sitting at zero, but it’s anything but simple. A flight is a very organic thing—complex, fluid, always changing—in which decision-making is constant and critical. For all of its scripted protocols, checklists, and SOP, hundreds if not thousands of subjective inputs are made by the crew, from deviating around a cumulus buildup (how far, how high, how long), to troubleshooting a mechanical issue to handling an onboard medical problem. Emergencies are another thing entirely. I’m talking about the run-of-the-mill situations that arise every single day, on every single flight, often to the point of task saturation. You’d be surprised how busy the cockpit can become. Another thing we hear again and again is how the sophisticated, automated Boeing or Airbus has made flying “easier” than it was in years past. On the contrary, it’s probably more demanding than it’s ever been. Once you account for all of the operational aspects of modern flying –- not merely the hands-on aspects of driving the plane, but familiarity with everything else that the job entails, from flight-planning to navigating to communicating—the volume of requisite knowledge is far greater than it used to be. The emphasis is on a somewhat different skill set, but it’s wrong to suggest that one skill set is necessarily more important than another. But, you’re bound to point out, what about the proliferation of remotely piloted military drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)? Are they not a harbinger of things to come? It’s tempting to see it that way. These machines are very sophisticated and have proven themselves reliable—to a point. But a drone is not a commercial jet carrying hundreds of people. It has an entirely different mission and operates in a wholly different environment—with far less at stake should something go wrong. You don’t simply take the drone concept, scale it up, build in a few redundancies, and off you go. I would like to see a drone perform a high-speed takeoff abort after a tire explosion, followed by the evacuation of 250 passengers. I would like to see one troubleshoot a pneumatic problem requiring an emergency diversion over mountainous terrain. I’d like to see it thread through a storm front over the middle of the ocean. Hell, even the simplest things. On any given flight there are innumerable contingencies, large and small, requiring the attention and subjective appraisal of the crew. And adapting the UAV model to the commercial realm would require, in addition to gigantic technological challenges, a restructuring of the entire commercial aviation infrastructure, from airports to ATC. We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars, from the planes themselves to the facilities they’d rely on. We still haven’t perfected the idea of remote control cars, trains, or ships; the leap to commercial aircraft would be harder and more expensive by orders of magnitude. And for what? You’d still need human beings to operate these planes remotely. Thus I’m not sure what the benefit of this would be in terms of cost. It amuses me that as aviation technology progresses and evolves, so many people see elimination of the pilot as the logical, inevitable endpoint. I’ve never understood this. Are modern medical advances intended to eliminate doctors? Of course not. What exists in the cockpit today is already a fine example of how progress and technology have improved flying—making it faster, far safer, and more reliable than it once was. But it has not made it easy, and it is a long, long way from engineering the pilot out of the picture—something we needn’t be looking for in the first place. I know how this sounds to some of you. It comes across as jealousy, or I sound like a Luddite pilot trying to defend his profession against the encroachment of technology and an inevitable obsolescence. You can think that all you want. I am not against the advance of technology. I’m against foolish extrapolations of it. This article was originally published on AskThePilot.com and is used here with the author’s permission. Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, author, and host of AskThePilot.com.
  9. Press Release from the Flight Safety Foundation: FSF Calls for High-Level Ministerial Summit, Criminal Responsibility, in Wake of MH17 Alexandria, VA, July 21, 2014 - The Flight Safety Foundation today requested today that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) call for a High-Level Ministerial meeting to review the systems in place to warn airlines of hostile airspace and take action in response to the shoot down of Malaysia Airlines 17 in the Ukraine, and for authorities to bring criminal prosecutions against those who brought down the aircraft and interfered with the investigation. "This tragically unfolding affront to safety, security, and humanity must be dealt with swiftly and surely by the international aviation community and law enforcement," said Jon Beatty, President and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation. "Where known threats to civil aviation exist, States should assess and widely publish this information, or close the airspace. If States cannot discharge their responsibilities to manage their airspace safely, ICAO should play a leading role to alerting or prohibiting airlines from flying through known, hostile airspace," Beatty further stated. "The failure to secure the wreckage, the refusal to grant full and unimpeded access to investigators, the delay in turning over the cockpit voice recorder and digital flight data recorder, and the inhumane treatment of MH 17 victims' remains represent appalling acts of inhumanity and interference," Beatty continued. "Those obstructing this investigation should be held criminally responsible. ICAO investigators must be given immediate and unimpeded access to the site. While noting that FSF is often against the criminalization of aviation accidents, Beatty stated: "Let's be clear: this is now a crime scene, not an accident scene; the perpetrators of this barbaric act of sabotage, must be held criminally responsible." "If States are unwilling or unable to discharge their responsibilities in the wake of a downed civil aircraft, ICAO must be ready and able to assert control over the investigation," Beatty concluded. Flight Safety Foundation is an independent, non-profit, international organization engaged in research, education, advocacy and publishing to improve aviation safety. The Foundation's mission is to be the leading voice of safety for the global aerospace community.
  10. Fisher: Moscow has a lot of explaining to do in wake of Malaysia Airlines plane crash http://o.canada.com/news/fisher-moscow-has-a-lot-of-explaining-to-do-in-wake-of-plane-crash
  11. I think this has come up in the past, but here is the story: By Dario Leone The story of the C-130 Hercules that landed on USS ForrestalEven if, nowadays, the C-2 Greyhound is the biggest transport aircraft designed specifically for carrier operations, on Oct. 30 1963, in an attempt to investigate the possibilities of using the C-130 for logistic support for U.S. fleet, a Hercules made an experimental landing on the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59). With the successful test, which took place in moderately rough seas in the North Atlantic 500 miles off the coast of Boston, the Hercules became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day. The idea behind this unusual test was the so-called “Super Carrier Onboard Delivery” (Super COD) aircraft. The COD concept was born to resupply aircraft carriers with urgently needed items. At the beginning of the 1960s, the airplane used for such task was the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin piston-engine aircraft with a limited payload capacity and 300-mile range, the Chief of Naval Operations ordered to assess the possibility of operating a bigger transport airplane aboard the Norfolk-based USS Forrestal (CVA-59). As explained by Joseph Earl Dabney in his book Herk: Hero of the Skies the C-130 was selected for its stability and reliability, combined with a long cruising range and the capability of carrying large payloads. The crew for this historic test consisted of Lt. James H. Flatley III, pilot; Lt. Cmdr. W.W. Stovall, copilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer; and Lockheed engineering flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr. When Lt. James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he thought somebody was pulling his leg. “Operate a C-130 off an aircraft carrier? Somebody’s got to be kidding,” he said. According to Dabney a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from the U.S. Marines and delivered on Oct. 8, 1963 was chosen for the historical trial. Lockheed’s only modifications to the original plane was a smaller nose-landing gear orifice, an improved anti-skid braking system, and removal of the underwing refueling pods. “The big worry was whether we could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second,” Flatley said. But, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to better this mark by a substantial margin. The initial sea trials started on Oct. 30 1963 and were conducted into a 40-knot wind: however the crew successfully performed 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft’s wing span as remarked by Dabney on his book. The Navy discovered that even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet of flight deck for takeoff and 460 feet for landing. These achievements were confirmed by Lockheed’s Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130 and stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop landings. “The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off.” The plane’s wingspan cleared the Forrestal’s flight deck “island” control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck on a specially painted line. As explained by Dabney, Lockheed’s chief engineer, Art E. Flock was aboard the USS Forrestal to observe the testing.“The sea was pretty big that day. I was up on the captain’s bridge. I watched a man on the ship’s bow as that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet.” The speed of the ship was increased 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind direction: in this way, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50 kts wind on the nose. “That airplane stopped right opposite the captain’s bridge,” recalled Flock. “There was cheering and laughing. There on the side of the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, “LOOK MA, NO HOOK.” The analysis of data collected by the U.S. Navy during the tests highlighted that the C-130 Hercules could carry 25,000 pounds of freight, fly for 2,500 miles and eventually land on a carrier. However, the procedure was considered a bit too risky for the C-130 and the Navy decided to use a smaller COD aircraft. For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross. In the video below you can see the trials conducted by the Hercules on the USS Forrestal and described in the article.
  • Create New...