io wrote in message ...
> SYDNEY, July 2 (AFP) - Five passengers of a Qantas 747 were injured when
>two escape chutes malfunctioned after a fire in the landing gear triggered
a
>panicked evacuation, Australia's national flag carrier admitted Wednesday.
> The 347 passengers were ordered by the captain to evacuate through the
>inflatable chutes when a ground engineer spotted smoke from one of the 16
>brakes of Flight QF6 from Frankfurt moments after it landed at Sydney
airport
>early on Wednesday.
Now let's see. Have I got this right?
You have 350 people (in a sealed air-conditioned metal tube) who are about
to start disembarking via another metal tube, both tubes being about 2
floors up.
The ground staff tell you you have a fire in a brake assy - at ground
level, obviously.
So what do you do? You evacuate the passengers via emergency slides TO
GROUND LEVEL WHERE THE FIRE IS and where presumably fire appliances are
trying to gain access to it!
> He said passengers were not told why they had to evacuate and could not
>tell that anything was wrong from inside the plane.
Entirely typical for Qantas - tell passengers nothing.
> Some relatives of passengers complained of unnecessary delays in
informing
>them what had happened.
> Charles Knight, 44, had been waiting for his sister's family to arrive
on
>the flight when he first heard media reports that something was wrong.
> He said his brother-in-law phoned him to say everything was okay but
other
>people waiting were unnecessarily alarmed. "I think there are some really
>worried people here and I think it's quite unnecessary for that to be the
case,
>" he said.
Entirely typical for Qantas - see above.
"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdvmb0$11cehp$1@no-spam
> Now let's see. Have I got this right?
> You have 350 people (in a sealed air-conditioned metal tube) who are about
OK to here
> to start disembarking via another metal tube, both tubes being about 2
> floors up.
No, the "other" tubes are Inflated comosite material.
> The ground staff tell you you have a fire in a brake assy - at ground
> level, obviously.
> So what do you do? You evacuate the passengers via emergency slides TO
> GROUND LEVEL WHERE THE FIRE IS and where presumably fire appliances are
> trying to gain access to it!
Better to leave them on board? and risk the fire spreading?
> He said passengers were not told why they had to evacuate and could not
> tell that anything was wrong from inside the plane.>
> Entirely typical for Qantas - tell passengers nothing.
They were told to evacuate, isn't that enough for a start?
> > Some relatives of passengers complained of unnecessary delays in
> informing
> >them what had happened.
> > Charles Knight, 44, had been waiting for his sister's family to arrive
> on
> >the flight when he first heard media reports that something was wrong.
> > He said his brother-in-law phoned him to say everything was okay but
> other
> >people waiting were unnecessarily alarmed. "I think there are some really
> >worried people here and I think it's quite unnecessary for that to be the
> case,
> >" he said.
>
> Entirely typical for Qantas - see above.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:03:51 +0000, io <io@no-spam> wrote:
> SYDNEY, July 2 (AFP) - Five passengers of a Qantas 747 were injured when
>two escape chutes malfunctioned after a fire in the landing gear triggered a
>panicked evacuation, Australia's national flag carrier admitted Wednesday.
> The 347 passengers were ordered by the captain to evacuate through the
>inflatable chutes when a ground engineer spotted smoke from one of the 16
>brakes of Flight QF6 from Frankfurt moments after it landed at Sydney airport
>early on Wednesday.
<http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/02/1056825438721.html>
Credit where credit is due
The evacuation in a very quick time was handled brilliantly
Even after things went wrong (two escape chutes failing)
The "injuries" were few and minor treated on the Spot
The cause of the fire is being looked into as will be the the 100%
success of the evacuation
Petzl
--
LET'S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA
http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/
Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:43:26 +1000
io wrote:
> SYDNEY, July 2 (AFP) - Five passengers of a Qantas 747 were injured
Five passengers were injured when they ignored crew instructions to
leave hand luggage behind. They didn't clear the bottom of the slides in
time to get out of the way of the pax behind them.
Cheers
David
Oh dear! That nasty little brake fire turned out to be an inconvenience to a number
of people. All I can say is; shit happens - The potential that many more COULD have
been inconvenienced when rescue crew were sifting through the ashes of what was once
an airliner doesn't seem to have been mentioned at all.
Interesting "slant" in the style that our good prostitute journo's wrote!
Sounds as though the crew did it "text book" style - I assume that the aircraft
flight manual goes something like this:
in the event of a fire (after landing) of uncertain origin, stop the aircraft and -
"EVACUATE" the aircraft (on the side opposite to the fire) immediately and ensure
that the vicinity is clear of all pax's and crew.
If that is indeed so AND the skipper DID NOT carry out an evacuation - the very same
"inconvenienced" pax's (or relatives as the case COULD HAVE been - influenced, of
course, by the same two-faced journo's) would be crying "hang the bastard" (the
skipper that is) for breach of ANO's (or whatever today's name for it is now).
Professionalism in the aviation industry is very high - its a pity journo's couldn't
achieve at least 10% of that standard.
SHEESH - BLOODY PEOPLE! It'd be pleasing to hear some positive comments for once :(
- veritas
io wrote:
> The 347 passengers were ordered by the captain to evacuate..... <snip>
"veritas" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F038F74.5060002@no-spam
> SHEESH - BLOODY PEOPLE! It'd be pleasing to hear some positive comments
for once :(
> - veritas
Grinning a bit here.
Considering your signature in Latin equates to "Truth"
have a look at my previous post and one from a person
better qualified to comment.
2.5 positives posts . Agree sheesh people.
Would it be a bad pun to say in this instance the "truth" set them free.
Cheers
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:43:26 +1000, David Bromage
<dbromage@no-spam> wrote:
>io wrote:
> > SYDNEY, July 2 (AFP) - Five passengers of a Qantas 747 were injured
>
>Five passengers were injured when they ignored crew instructions to
>leave hand luggage behind. They didn't clear the bottom of the slides in
>time to get out of the way of the pax behind them.
>
>Cheers
>David
This is one of the biggest headaches flight attendants have to deal
with - those passengers who won't take their shoes off, want to take
their handbag/briefcase with them; people who block the aisles by
opening up overheads etc etc.
I have watched flight attendants in training going through emergency
evac drill - they are well trained. However, no-one knows how the
person sitting next to you will react. Then you have those persons
who have doped themselves with sleeping tablets that endanger flight
crews as well as other passengers.
Cath
Pits,
I wasn't referring to any posters at all but rather to "BLOODY PEOPLE". That is the
"bloody people" who precipitously make silly statements and the journo's who
selectively quote those comments knowing what little reference to the truth it may
be. Since I had expected that any reference to "posters" would have been
automatically dismissed - I'm therefore sorry if anyone has been mislead or offended
- perhaps my comment/s could have been a little clearer about to whom my
spleen-venting was targeted :)
I trust this will clear the matter satisfactorily.
Cheers - veritas
Pits wrote:
> "veritas" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F038F74.5060002@no-spam
>
>>SHEESH - BLOODY PEOPLE! It'd be pleasing to hear some positive comments
>
> for once :(
>
>> - veritas
>
> Grinning a bit here.
> Considering your signature in Latin equates to "Truth"
> have a look at my previous post and one from a person
> better qualified to comment.
> 2.5 positives posts . Agree sheesh people.
> Would it be a bad pun to say in this instance the "truth" set them free.
>
> Cheers
>
>
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:11:23 +1000, "RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote:
>
>Even pilots are allowed to think.
>
But not in Qantas service - independent thinking is well trained out
of QF pilots
Hence the paralysis on the flight deck in the QF1 BKK golf course
excursion and the failure to employ reverse thrust - when native
intelligence or even basic self -preservation dictated that any
competent pilot would do so.
Delay in applying braking ditto.
And same here in YSSY for cooking the brakes due to failing to employ
reverse thrust.
The captain undoubtedlty made the correct evacuation call at the gate.
But he should be f$cked and burnt himself for causing the fire in the
first place.
QF Pilots = Automatons and if anything goes wrong expect SOPs to
prevail over common sense..
"Vector" <victavector@no-spam> wrote in message > And same here in YSSY
for cooking the brakes due to failing to employ
> reverse thrust.
>
> The captain undoubtedlty made the correct evacuation call at the gate.
How much reverse thrust, does reverse thrust provide?
"veritas" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F03AE68.1040702@no-spam
> Pits,
>
> I wasn't referring to any posters at all but rather to "BLOODY PEOPLE".
That is the
> "bloody people" who precipitously make silly statements and the journo's
who
> selectively quote those comments knowing what little reference to the
truth it may
>
OK no wuckers. Cheers
fine is ? :-)
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:47:36 GMT, "JB" <jb0767@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Vector" <victavector@no-spam> wrote in message > And same here in YSSY
>for cooking the brakes due to failing to employ
>> reverse thrust.
>>
>> The captain undoubtedlty made the correct evacuation call at the gate.
>
>How much reverse thrust, does reverse thrust provide?
NOt much. However anything is useful, since the energy to be
dissipated is .5 M x V^2, so anything you do to reduce V prior to
brake application, dramatically reduces the energy the brakes have to
dissipate.
>
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:45:31 +1000, Vector <victavector@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:11:23 +1000, "RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>Even pilots are allowed to think.
>>
>But not in Qantas service - independent thinking is well trained out
>of QF pilots
>
>Hence the paralysis on the flight deck in the QF1 BKK golf course
>excursion and the failure to employ reverse thrust - when native
>intelligence or even basic self -preservation dictated that any
>competent pilot would do so.
>
>Delay in applying braking ditto.
>
>And same here in YSSY for cooking the brakes due to failing to employ
>reverse thrust.
>
>The captain undoubtedlty made the correct evacuation call at the gate.
>
>But he should be f$cked and burnt himself for causing the fire in the
>first place.
>
>QF Pilots = Automatons and if anything goes wrong expect SOPs to
>prevail over common sense..
BKK has already been addressed and accounted for (old news)
The brake fire was outside of the crews control. It will be looked
into to see it is less likley to happen again
I were most impressed at the calls that were quickly made. Even after
two "chutes" failed the crew reacted swiftly (real heros)
the result of a brake fire
<http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/madras/photo.shtml>
Petzl
--
LET'S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA
http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/
Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat
Petzl <petzl+news2@no-spam> writes
>The brake fire was outside of the crews control. It will be looked
>into to see it is less likley to happen again
In a brake fire, what substance is burning?
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
The sign I put up around Dorothy when I am at public displays reads:
NO SMOKING
Government Health Warning:
Smoking causes severe burns from exploding aircraft.....
Well Done Qantas crew. That's why I fly with you.
And that's why the critics aren't Qantas pilots
Fire + aeroplane = WHOOMPFF!! (Frequently)
Does anyone recall the stadium fire in the UK that killed so many people so
quickly, but looked like just a little bitsy conflagration which you
could have
pissed on when it first started? (Fully televised)
That's why you need to get people out fast. The aircraft is stationary.
Lots of
radiant and convective heat is going straight up into the wheel well, where
there are lots of things that might start burning. Who knows how long
that heat
has been building? The five minutes (or more) might already be up......
Just my 2 cents worth...
Coop
(But we do need to know why those escape slides failed- that's the only
question as I see it...)
"Vector" <victavector@no-spam> wrote in message
news:2mtagvclqrt9hinerrapjgao8inh5cjrv4@no-spam
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 04:56:39 GMT, "JB" <jb0767@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >Reverse thrust gives bugger all reverse thrust.
>
> Oh?
>
> Try telling that to Nikki Lauda.
Well, perhaps you should go away and do some reading on the subject. The
Lauda 767 wasn't brought down by reverse thrust. What brought it down was
the disturbance of the airflow on the wing concerned, and the subsequent
assymetric loss of lift.
Simon Elliott <simon@no-spam> iterated.....
> Petzl <petzl+news2@no-spam> writes
>>The brake fire was outside of the crews control. It will be
>>looked into to see it is less likley to happen again
>
> In a brake fire, what substance is burning?
Tires, lining, rotors, caliphers, wheels, and eventually
hydraulic fluid (generally in order, outermost first).
TMO
"JB" <jb0767@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3nfNa.712$R15.15476@no-spam
> What is it with this reverse thrust myth? It makes some noise, and makes
> some people feel good. And on a wet runway with a crosswind, it can be
your
> worst enemy.
>
I think the Poms years ago did experiments using reverse thrust + brakes vs
brakes only.
The reason the rv+b landings were so much shorter was the pilots after
selecting reverse
they were standing on the brakes.
"matt weber" <mattheww50@no-spam> wrote in message
news:55lcgvsbo6m5m6073kk84epod63ii37lov@no-spam
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:12:51 +0100, Simon Elliott
> <simon@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >Petzl <petzl+news2@no-spam> writes
> >>The brake fire was outside of the crews control. It will be looked
> >>into to see it is less likley to happen again
> >
> >In a brake fire, what substance is burning?
> Usually the tyres.
>
Then why don't they design a steel tyre and rubber runway.
"Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f06818c$0$26638$afc38c87@no-spam
|
| >
|
| Then why don't they design a steel tyre and rubber runway.
|
Because it's too hard to ring up and report a "runaway runway fire"
Cheers
Dave Kearton
"Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f06818c$0$26638$afc38c87@no-spam
>
> "matt weber" <mattheww50@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:55lcgvsbo6m5m6073kk84epod63ii37lov@no-spam
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:12:51 +0100, Simon Elliott
> > <simon@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > >Petzl <petzl+news2@no-spam> writes
> > >>The brake fire was outside of the crews control. It will be looked
> > >>into to see it is less likley to happen again
> > >
> > >In a brake fire, what substance is burning?
> > Usually the tyres.
> >
>
> Then why don't they design a steel tyre and rubber runway.
1. Because you couldn't see the skid marks
2. My Dunlop shares would plummet
3. Revolutionary ideas by individuals are rejected as a matter of course
(because the authorities should have thought of it first)
Otherwise I think it begs serious debate.
Hell - what about a PhD thesis?
John
"Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> "John Ewing" <John@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3f068907$0$5973$afc38c87@no-spam
> >
> > "Simon Elliott" <simon@no-spam> wrote in message
> >
> > > TMOliver <olive@no-spam> writes
> > > >Simon Elliott <simon@no-spam> iterated.....
> > > >
> > > >> Petzl <petzl+news2@no-spam> writes
> > > >>>The brake fire was outside of the crews control. It will be
> > > >>>looked into to see it is less likley to happen again
> > > >>
> > > >> In a brake fire, what substance is burning?
> > > >
> > > >Tires, lining, rotors, caliphers, wheels, and eventually
> > > >hydraulic fluid (generally in order, outermost first).
> > >
> > > I one heard (admittedly a Monarch) captain make an announcement that
> > > brake fluid was not inflammable. At the time I was sitting in an A320
> > > at the end of a runway at LGW, and the aforementioned brake fluid was
> > > forming a large puddle around the aircraft. The captain went on to
> > > explain that the half dozen airport fire appliances which were in
> > > attendance were only there as a precaution.
> > > --
> > > Simon Elliott
> > > http://www.ctsn.co.uk
> >
> > Simon, my guess is that in the situation you mention above, brake fluid
is
> > not flammable - in the normal sense of the word.
> > In other words even if someone threw a lighted match into the puddle of
> > brake fluid there would be no ignition.
> > Its boiling point is, by design, many hundreds degrees Celsius.
> >
> > Not sure whether it is combustible, but in the case of red hot brake
discs
> > and calipers, if it does escape from the hydraulic lines there is going
to
> > be huge amounts of toxic fumes.
> >
>
> Air India lost a heavy due fire in the MLG well.
> Hydraulic line ruptured spraying fluid over a lit globe and ignited.
> Manufacturer said it wouldn't burn, and in a beaker it wont, but atomised
> like under pressure
> it burns like petrol.
Makes sense, Graeme - probably the more volatile fractions separate when it
vapourises.
Cheers,
John
John Ewing <John@no-spam> writes
>> I one heard (admittedly a Monarch) captain make an announcement that
>> brake fluid was not inflammable. At the time I was sitting in an A320
>> at the end of a runway at LGW, and the aforementioned brake fluid was
>> forming a large puddle around the aircraft. The captain went on to
>> explain that the half dozen airport fire appliances which were in
>> attendance were only there as a precaution.
>Simon, my guess is that in the situation you mention above, brake fluid is
>not flammable - in the normal sense of the word.
>In other words even if someone threw a lighted match into the puddle of
>brake fluid there would be no ignition.
>Its boiling point is, by design, many hundreds degrees Celsius.
>
>Not sure whether it is combustible, but in the case of red hot brake discs
>and calipers, if it does escape from the hydraulic lines there is going to
>be huge amounts of toxic fumes.
Thanks, that makes sense.
Allegedly Russian military aircraft used to use a hydraulic fluid which
was largely ethanol, which explained why you so often saw pissed-up
ground crew on FSU air bases. I bet that stuff burned pretty readily!
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
Graeme Hogan <ghogan01@no-spam> writes
>> Not sure whether it is combustible, but in the case of red hot brake discs
>> and calipers, if it does escape from the hydraulic lines there is going to
>> be huge amounts of toxic fumes.
>>
>
>Air India lost a heavy due fire in the MLG well.
>Hydraulic line ruptured spraying fluid over a lit globe and ignited.
>Manufacturer said it wouldn't burn, and in a beaker it wont, but atomised
>like under pressure
>it burns like petrol.
A quick google search reveals the safety data sheets for Solutia inc.
Skydrol:
http://domino.solutia.com/solutia/smsdslib.nsf/SkydrolProducts?openview
Solutia Inc. Material Safety Data Sheet Date: 09/25/2001
Product name: MCS®-2361 Fire resistant hydraulic fluid
Flash point: 229 C Cleveland Open Cup
Fire point: 244 C Cleveland Open Cup
Hazardous products of combustion:
carbon monoxide (CO); carbon dioxide; soot; smoke; phosphorus oxides
(PxOy)
Extinguishing media:
Water spray, foam, dry chemical, or carbon dioxide
It turns out that there's also a Skydrol website. The FAQ page is
interesting:
http://www.skydrol.com/pages/faqs.asp
Q: Are Skydrol hydraulic fluids fire-proof?
A: No. There are conditions under which Skydrol will burn. Skydrol
fluids are "fire resistant." Traditionally the term "fire resistant" has
been used to describe phosphate esters, as opposed to mineral oil based
hydraulic fluids, because they are very difficult to ignite at room
temperature. In standardized testing, a fine mist spray of Skydrol
cannot be ignited with a burning propane torch. The same fine mist spray
of a mineral oil hydraulic fluid, such as MIL-H-5606 or MIL-PRF-83282,
produces a large fireball when touched by a propane torch.
The basic parameters of fire resistance include: 1) resistance to
ignition, and 2) resistance to propagation of the flame from the source
of ignition. The test methods followed by the industry are described in
AMS 3150 and various ASTM test methods. For more detail, please ask for
our Publication No. 9118 on fire resistance.
Q: Under what conditions will Skydrol burn?
A: Skydrol fluids must be heated to high temperatures before they will
sustain combustion. The fire point of Skydrol LD-4, for example, is
360oF. This is the temperature the fluid must be heated to in order for
it to be ignited in the ASTM D92 cup apparatus. The autoignition
temperature of LD-4 is 880oF. This is the temperature at which the
vapors will ignite spontaneously.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:12:51 +0100, Simon Elliott
<simon@no-spam> wrote:
>Petzl <petzl+news2@no-spam> writes
>>The brake fire was outside of the crews control. It will be looked
>>into to see it is less likley to happen again
>
>In a brake fire, what substance is burning?
Depending on the temperatures reached the metal alloy components of
the brake could combust themselves.
I suspect the design of these brakes have some sort of cooling ability
which failed (clogged with dirt?)
The brakes hydraulic fluid would also, under high temperature, be an
ignition source
The problem is once combustion starts it immediately starts spreading
to tyres, then to hydraulic well , then to fuel tanks then possibly to
other ignitable's around airport that are in proximity.
Petzl
--
scan your computer
On line virus scanners available here
"Trend Micro's free online virus scanner"
http://housecall.trendmicro.com/
or
"Panda ActiveScan"
http://www.pandasoftware.com/activescan/
There are free virus detectors such as this one
"AVG 6.0 Free Edition"
http://www.grisoft.com
Check your computer for "Spy Bots"
freeware available
<http://security.kolla.de/>
JB wrote in message <3nfNa.712$R15.15476@no-spam>...
>As reverse thrust comes in, it is very destructive of any residual lift,
and
>also blows most water away. One effect increases the wheel friction forces
>(in the order of 12,000 lbs on a 747 (i.e. greater than full reverse)),
>whilst the other makes any braking more effective. And the killing of the
>residual forward thrust gets rid of around 20,000 lbs forward, but you only
>need idle reverse to do that.
..................
>What is it with this reverse thrust myth? It makes some noise, and makes
>some people feel good. And on a wet runway with a crosswind, it can be your
>worst enemy.
Could you elaborate on that one JB? Your 1st and last paras seem to
contradict each other ....
"John Ewing" <John@no-spam> iterated.....
>
> "Graeme Hogan" wrote
>>
>>
>> Then why don't they design a steel tyre and rubber runway.
>
> 1. Because you couldn't see the skid marks
> 2. My Dunlop shares would plummet
> 3. Revolutionary ideas by individuals are rejected as a
> matter of course (because the authorities should have
> thought of it first)
>
> Otherwise I think it begs serious debate.
> Hell - what about a PhD thesis?
>
I suspect that there already may be a couple around....
In the US in recent years, overrun with a century of old tires
(and without near so much uninhabited and rarely visited space
as Oz where they may be conveniently stacked out of sight and
mind and occasionally burned to provide direction markers for
lost ijits attempting to cross the Big H'aisland afoot), we've
been desperately seeking all sorts of beneficial uses for the
leftovers.
Chained together and dumped offshore, they make pretty good
fishing reefs, apparently only breaking down at a slower rate
than old battleships, but chain's expensive and the esthetics of
tire reefs don't appeal to divers, even ascetic ones.
Best of all, after trying them ground sort of medium and bound,
on kids' playgrounds (a small market, considering all the tires)
is their use, chopped mixed with binders and aggregate, etc., as
paving material for streets and highways (and or runways serving
light a/c).
TMO
JB wrote:
>
>
> What is it with this reverse thrust myth? It makes some noise, and makes
> some people feel good. And on a wet runway with a crosswind, it can be your
> worst enemy.
JB,
>From inside the cabin it sounds impressive, and there is a noticeable increase
in braking at the same time. From what you say, I guess this is due to the RT
making the wheel braking more effective (due reduced lift, and killing the
forward thrust) but the timing makes it feel like its the reverse thrust that's
doing it. So I guess that perpetuates the myth among those of us who don't get
to do it from the front seats.....
First time I saw the thrust buckets do their thing on the early 737's I thought
the back end of the engine had jumped off.....now that was impressive......
Coop
In general, brake fluid is not flamable under most conditions, and the
if the linings/disks actually catch fire, you are in deep manure.
They are designed not to burn, and can easily withstand temperature
that make then glow well beyond mere red hot.
If the brake fluid actually catches fire, odds are it will be the
least of your worries, because probably the magnesium wheels on some
aircraft will go up first, and you don't want to be anywhere near when
that happens. That may have been part of what happened in the ValuJet
D9 accident. There was a D9 nosewheel assembly in the hold. The
wheels? Magnesium
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 07:52:39 +0100, Simon Elliott
<simon@no-spam> wrote:
>TMOliver <olive@no-spam> writes
>>Simon Elliott <simon@no-spam> iterated.....
>>
>>> Petzl <petzl+news2@no-spam> writes
>>>>The brake fire was outside of the crews control. It will be
>>>>looked into to see it is less likley to happen again
>>>
>>> In a brake fire, what substance is burning?
>>
>>Tires, lining, rotors, caliphers, wheels, and eventually
>>hydraulic fluid (generally in order, outermost first).
>
>I one heard (admittedly a Monarch) captain make an announcement that
>brake fluid was not inflammable. At the time I was sitting in an A320
>at the end of a runway at LGW, and the aforementioned brake fluid was
>forming a large puddle around the aircraft. The captain went on to
>explain that the half dozen airport fire appliances which were in
>attendance were only there as a precaution.
Yes, to wash away the brake fluid. It is pretty nasty stuff.
matt weber <mattheww50@no-spam> iterated.....
> In general, brake fluid is not flamable under most
> conditions, and the if the linings/disks actually catch
> fire, you are in deep manure.
>
>
> They are designed not to burn, and can easily withstand
> temperature that make then glow well beyond mere red hot.
>
> If the brake fluid actually catches fire, odds are it will
> be the least of your worries, because probably the magnesium
> wheels on some aircraft will go up first, and you don't want
> to be anywhere near when that happens. That may have been
> part of what happened in the ValuJet D9 accident. There was
> a D9 nosewheel assembly in the hold. The wheels? Magnesium
>
>
When the wheels take fire, can the rest of the assembly and the
fluid be far behind....(sort of a sympathetic communal living
Ronnson ad).
TMO
Rather a silly statement - evacuation procedures call for evacuation on the OPPOSITE
side to that of the fire! (which I had clearly suggested in an earlier post).
Now - do you actually know what side the fire was on AND what side the
"airconditioned comfort" was on?
A short retraction of you ill-informed statement will suffice! :(
veritas
RT wrote:
> Erm,,,,,,,, Dave.......... Has it come to your notice the pax were sent,
> **deliberately**, to where the fire was "raging" rather than being allowed
> to disembark in air conditioned comfort as usual?
>
>
Graeme Hogan <ghogan01@no-spam> writes
>
>"JB" <jb0767@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3nfNa.712$R15.15476@no-spam
>> What is it with this reverse thrust myth? It makes some noise, and makes
>> some people feel good. And on a wet runway with a crosswind, it can be
>your
>> worst enemy.
>I think the Poms years ago did experiments using reverse thrust + brakes vs
>brakes only.
>The reason the rv+b landings were so much shorter was the pilots after
>selecting reverse
>they were standing on the brakes.
I wonder if the same is true with reverse pitch on propeller aircraft?
It always seems to stop Twin Otters, F27s and AN24s pretty dramatically
even on surfaces where you wouldn't imagine that brakes would work too
well. But I don't know how hard the pilot was applying the brakes at the
time...
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
Simon Elliott wrote:
>
> I wonder if the same is true with reverse pitch on propeller aircraft?
Reverse pitch (standing alone) on the Twotter is very effective - it is a STOL
aircraft and one would expect nothing less.
The F27 is a little different - it had only "fine pitch" (a couple of degrees
propeller pitch that did not contribute to thrust in "ground idle" when the aircraft
was stationary (or near to it). HOWEVER the zero pitch will, in reality, be an
effective "reverse thrust" on the landing roll due to the relative forward airflow.
It is quite effective at 90 or so knots and increased deaccelleration can be felt
as soon as engaged. The V700 and 800's (Viscount) used the same system (same RR
Dart power plants)
> It always seems to stop Twin Otters, F27s and AN24s pretty dramatically
> even on surfaces where you wouldn't imagine that brakes would work too
> well. But I don't know how hard the pilot was applying the brakes at the
> time...
veritas
"Simon Elliott" <simon@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> I wonder if the same is true with reverse pitch on propeller aircraft?
> It always seems to stop Twin Otters, F27s and AN24s pretty dramatically
> even on surfaces where you wouldn't imagine that brakes would work too
> well. But I don't know how hard the pilot was applying the brakes at the
> time...
> --
> Simon Elliott
> http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
Reverse pitch on a propeller is very effective compared with the previous
described alternatives for jets.
As JB mentioned the thrust vector on jets is at an angle to the direction of
travel, so only some of the thrust is effective.
With a propellor all the reverse thrust is effective thrust.
Cheers,
John
veritas wrote in message <3F09020C.1030203@no-spam>...
>Rather a silly statement - evacuation procedures call for evacuation on the
OPPOSITE
>side to that of the fire! (which I had clearly suggested in an earlier
post).
>
>Now - do you actually know what side the fire was on AND what side the
>"airconditioned comfort" was on?
>
>A short retraction of you ill-informed statement will suffice! :(
>
>veritas
>
>RT wrote:
>
>> Erm,,,,,,,, Dave.......... Has it come to your notice the pax were
sent,
>> **deliberately**, to where the fire was "raging" rather than being
allowed
>> to disembark in air conditioned comfort as usual?
Erm... "veritas", you top-posting veggie, the air-conditioned comfort was 2
floors above the "fire", as would have been fairly plain to you if you had
ever mastered the intricacies of the English language.......
veritas wrote in message <3F09031C.3020402@no-spam>...
>YEP - Order a runway that allows 100% into-wind landing or alternatively,
wait until
>the wind drops (usually about an hour before dark).
>
>RT wrote:
>>
>> Mmmm..... awkward......
>> Can you "slide" around it by pointing the nose upwind?
>>
>> (Given that you are going to slide anyway.......:-)
Erm..."veritas", you top posting veggie, a laborious consideration of
assorted headers might have given you the clue that I was asking the butcher
(someone else), not the block (you).
">wait until the wind drops (usually about an hour before dark)."
Yair. Noticed that effect with cyclones, veggie - er, sorry, veritas...
If you knew anything about aviation - you would know that the PIC is obliged to
follow the directions given in the aircraft flight manual. Since you seem to be
very positive about your knowledge of what should have been done - tell everyone
her: what the aircraft flight manual directions are for a fire outside of the port
side? Hint: I note you are critical of the captain ordering the evacuation on the
STB side?
If you have the intellect to find the answer, then.....
I say again: A short retraction of you ill-informed statement will suffice! :(
veritas
>>
>>RT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Erm,,,,,,,, Dave.......... Has it come to your notice the pax were
>>
> sent,
>
>>>**deliberately**, to where the fire was "raging" rather than being
>>
> allowed
>
>>>to disembark in air conditioned comfort as usual?
>>
>
> Erm... "veritas", you top-posting veggie, the air-conditioned comfort was 2
> floors above the "fire", as would have been fairly plain to you if you had
> ever mastered the intricacies of the English language.......
EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!
>
>
veritas wrote in message <3F0AA861.106@no-spam>...
>If you knew anything about aviation - you would know that the PIC is
obliged to
>follow the directions given in the aircraft flight manual. Since you seem
to be
>very positive about your knowledge of what should have been done - tell
everyone
>her: what the aircraft flight manual directions are for a fire outside of
the port
>side? Hint: I note you are critical of the captain ordering the evacuation
on the
>STB side?
>
>If you have the intellect to find the answer, then.....
>I say again: A short retraction of you ill-informed statement will suffice!
:(
>
>veritas
>>>
>>>RT wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Erm,,,,,,,, Dave.......... Has it come to your notice the pax were
>>>
>> sent,
>>
>>>>**deliberately**, to where the fire was "raging" rather than being
>>>
>> allowed
>>
>>>>to disembark in air conditioned comfort as usual?
>>>
>>
>> Erm... "veritas", you top-posting veggie, the air-conditioned comfort was
2
>> floors above the "fire", as would have been fairly plain to you if you
had
>> ever mastered the intricacies of the English language.......
>
>EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!
Mmmm......... dunno what veritas is on, but it must be good shit! Er, you
ever heard of an airbridge, vegitas?
veritas wrote in message <3F0AA5AB.8080007@no-spam>...
>:) but you got a reply anyhow - shit happens - its a public forum. Ever
wonder why
>shit happens more often to you?
>
>RT wrote:
>> veritas wrote in message <3F09031C.3020402@no-spam>...
>>
>>>YEP - Order a runway that allows 100% into-wind landing or alternatively,
>>
>> wait until
>>
>>>the wind drops (usually about an hour before dark).
>>>
>>>RT wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mmmm..... awkward......
>>>>Can you "slide" around it by pointing the nose upwind?
>>>>
>>>>(Given that you are going to slide anyway.......:-)
>>>
>>
>> Erm..."veritas", you top posting veggie, a laborious consideration of
>> assorted headers might have given you the clue that I was asking the
butcher
>> (someone else), not the block (you).
>>
>> ">wait until the wind drops (usually about an hour before dark)."
>>
>> Yair. Noticed that effect with cyclones, veggie - er, sorry, veritas...
Heh, heh, heh.... Not to worry vegitas - all will become clear after your
1st TIF.
veritas <nospam@no-spam> writes
>> I wonder if the same is true with reverse pitch on propeller aircraft?
>
>Reverse pitch (standing alone) on the Twotter is very effective - it is a STOL
>aircraft and one would expect nothing less.
>
>The F27 is a little different - it had only "fine pitch" (a couple of degrees
>propeller pitch that did not contribute to thrust in "ground idle" when the
>aircraft
>was stationary (or near to it). HOWEVER the zero pitch will, in reality, be an
>effective "reverse thrust" on the landing roll due to the relative forward
>airflow.
> It is quite effective at 90 or so knots and increased deaccelleration can be
>felt
>as soon as engaged.
Thanks for the info on the F27. I wonder why it wasn't fitted with a
propeller that could do full reverse pitch? Would this mean that it
couldn't push itself back or am I missing something here?
>The V700 and 800's (Viscount) used the same system (same RR
>Dart power plants)
I'm just old enough to remember the Viscount and the less successful
Vanguard.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
news:beeafh$43f7l$1@no-spam
>
> veritas wrote in message <3F0AA861.106@no-spam>...
> >If you knew anything about aviation - you would know that the PIC is
> obliged to
> >follow the directions given in the aircraft flight manual. Since you
seem
> to be
> >very positive about your knowledge of what should have been done - tell
> everyone
> >her: what the aircraft flight manual directions are for a fire outside of
> the port
> >side? Hint: I note you are critical of the captain ordering the
evacuation
> on the
> >STB side?
> >
> >If you have the intellect to find the answer, then.....
> >I say again: A short retraction of you ill-informed statement will
suffice!
> :(
> >
> >veritas
> >>>
> >>>RT wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Erm,,,,,,,, Dave.......... Has it come to your notice the pax were
> >>>
> >> sent,
> >>
> >>>>**deliberately**, to where the fire was "raging" rather than being
> >>>
> >> allowed
> >>
> >>>>to disembark in air conditioned comfort as usual?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Erm... "veritas", you top-posting veggie, the air-conditioned comfort
was
> 2
> >> floors above the "fire", as would have been fairly plain to you if you
> had
> >> ever mastered the intricacies of the English language.......
> >
> >EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Mmmm......... dunno what veritas is on, but it must be good shit! Er,
you
> ever heard of an airbridge, vegitas?
RT!! Just having a peek at this thread. Honestly cobber I think your on a
hiding to nothing here.
I have a sneaking feeling that Veritas may just have a tad more experience
and
knowledge than he lets on. He certainly writes more appropriatly.
However, there was NO "raging" inferno as you keep saying.
Obviously you have had some fire training as I recall you stated .
But You obviously have not had command time in a RPT aircraft.
So again lets just wait until the investigation comes out.
Although my can of Dry Ginger Ale is on the captain having
made the correct call.
What do you do for a crust RT? Just interested .
Cheers
P
Coop wrote in message <3F06F6BD.79F88F71@no-spam>...
>JB wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> What is it with this reverse thrust myth? It makes some noise, and makes
>> some people feel good. And on a wet runway with a crosswind, it can be
your
>> worst enemy.
>
>JB,
>>From inside the cabin it sounds impressive, and there is a noticeable
increase
>in braking at the same time. From what you say, I guess this is due to the
RT
>making the wheel braking more effective (due reduced lift, and killing the
>forward thrust) but the timing makes it feel like its the reverse thrust
that's
>doing it. So I guess that perpetuates the myth among those of us who don't
get
>to do it from the front seats.....
>First time I saw the thrust buckets do their thing on the early 737's I
thought
>the back end of the engine had jumped off.....now that was impressive......
(Um - you don't mean 7*2*7s?)
Was in something or other a coupla weeks ago and whoever was landing musta
decided to stretch their legs on roll out. For a few seconds that thing
REALLY decellerated! Very impressive! Didn't know heavies could slow
down so dramatically - bloody near put tooth marks on the fold-down table
:-)
Pits wrote in message <3f0b43aa@no-spam>...
>
>"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:beeafh$43f7l$1@no-spam
>RT!! Just having a peek at this thread. Honestly cobber I think your on a
>hiding to nothing here.
>I have a sneaking feeling that Veritas may just have a tad more experience
>and
>knowledge than he lets on. He certainly writes more appropriatly.
>However, there was NO "raging" inferno as you keep saying.
Oh Jesus......... WTFH do you think I used inverted commas?
But that's the whole point - if there WAS no "raging" inferno then it was
cavelier/wanton/careless/choose your own adjective to sool poor tottery ole
grannies down chutes *particularly* if as it now appears 30% of the pax had
already disembarked by the usual, safe, air-conditioned airbridge before
someone at ground level mentioned a bitta smoke coming off one truck.
>Obviously you have had some fire training as I recall you stated .
>But You obviously have not had command time in a RPT aircraft.
You're quite right - but I was unaware that idiocy was a prerequisite for
command time in an RPT aircraft...
>So again lets just wait until the investigation comes out.
>Although my can of Dry Ginger Ale is on the captain having
>made the correct call.
They won't be criticised but it sure as hell won't help their career.
>What do you do for a crust RT? Just interested .
At the moment? Nothing :-) But I do have a coupla engineering degrees, a
commercial, a buncha LAME licences, and have been engine o/h and prop o/h
signatory. Oh, and a bitta firey training :-)
And you?
"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
news:beghpf$4d5lf$1@no-spam
>
> Pits wrote in message <3f0b43aa@no-spam>...
> >
> >"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:beeafh$43f7l$1@no-spam
> >RT!! Just having a peek at this thread. Honestly cobber I think your on a
> >hiding to nothing here.
> >I have a sneaking feeling that Veritas may just have a tad more
experience
> >and
> >knowledge than he lets on. He certainly writes more appropriatly.
> >However, there was NO "raging" inferno as you keep saying.
>
> Oh Jesus......... WTFH do you think I used inverted commas?
CLUNK!! ( sound of penny dropping:-) Ok fair enough.
>
> But that's the whole point - if there WAS no "raging" inferno then it was
> cavelier/wanton/careless/choose your own adjective to sool poor tottery
ole
> grannies down chutes *particularly* if as it now appears 30% of the pax
had
> already disembarked by the usual, safe, air-conditioned airbridge before
> someone at ground level mentioned a bitta smoke coming off one truck.
One of the god things about this forum is that it does open discussion
and i guess all aspects will be looked at via the investigation team.
One aspect that is an not yet an exact science is
human and behavioural factors being able to transmit
into learned behaviour when not all facts are known.
As you know fire and smoke toxic considerations
are fast and insidious killers .
Re the grannies down slides etc is one of those situation in hindsight
that will be considered. However, my view is that the Capt perhaps
did not have all data to make an informed decision and instead took the safe
way in a rsk assesment sense (given the paucity of data that is now
appearing
to be given to him) So still think from that perception the call was the
best one.
>
> >Obviously you have had some fire training as I recall you stated .
> >But You obviously have not had command time in a RPT aircraft.
>
> You're quite right - but I was unaware that idiocy was a prerequisite for
> command time in an RPT aircraft...
Think the above is a tad emotive and a wee bit strong . Please remember
perception and situational awarness factors of the Commander from the data
or apparent lack of it given to him. The fact that a tube (aero bridge) also
had
folks in it why not think of it as another deployed slide ? albeit said to
be on the side of the fire .
> >So again lets just wait until the investigation comes out.
> >Although my can of Dry Ginger Ale is on the captain having
> >made the correct call.
>
> They won't be criticised but it sure as hell won't help their career.
Have no idea what will happen career wise without fuller facts.
> >What do you do for a crust RT? Just interested .
>
> At the moment? Nothing :-) But I do have a coupla engineering degrees,
a
> commercial, a buncha LAME licences, and have been engine o/h and prop o/h
> signatory.
> And you?
>
Well rounded there cobber Why not work at the moment?
Thought we were short of lames?
Pushing paper sort of at the moment also a couple of degrees
and Yonks ago Rotary wing CPL.
Now in the scrub involved in Agri Finance and technology transfer.
Oh, and a bitta fiery training :-) also :)
Cheers
"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
news:beghpf$4d5lf$1@no-spam
>
> Pits wrote in message <3f0b43aa@no-spam>...
> >What do you do for a crust RT? Just interested .
>
> At the moment? Nothing :-) But I do have a coupla engineering degrees,
a
> commercial, a buncha LAME licences, and have been engine o/h and prop o/h
> signatory. Oh, and a bitta firey training :-)
Re this and with consideration to your learning.
this may be of interest
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/fmabbs.html
http://www.fire.org.uk/aviation/papers/home.htm
Here is some stuff and sniff out Larens Thomas's work interesting reading
http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/soe/aircraftevacuations/publications.htm
http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/prospectus/soe/dhfat.htm
Excellent resource here
http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/subject-listing/tran12.html
Cheers
Phil
Simon Elliott wrote:
> veritas <nospam@no-spam> writes
>
>>>I wonder if the same is true with reverse pitch on propeller aircraft?
>>
>>Reverse pitch (standing alone) on the Twotter is very effective - it is a STOL
>>aircraft and one would expect nothing less.
>>
>>The F27 is a little different - it had only "fine pitch" (a couple of degrees
>>propeller pitch that did not contribute to thrust in "ground idle" when the
>>aircraft
>>was stationary (or near to it). HOWEVER the zero pitch will, in reality, be an
>>effective "reverse thrust" on the landing roll due to the relative forward
>>airflow.
>> It is quite effective at 90 or so knots and increased deaccelleration can be
>>felt
>>as soon as engaged.
>
>
> Thanks for the info on the F27. I wonder why it wasn't fitted with a
> propeller that could do full reverse pitch? Would this mean that it
> couldn't push itself back or am I missing something here?
You seem to have to idea Ok! You are correct - the F27 will not push itself back as
it cannot produce reverse thrust (when at zero airspeed). I believe that the F27
has adequate propeller braking with its "ground fine" setting. It is a small
airliner (around 36,000 LBS if I recall correctly) and comes "over the fence"
between 80 KTS and 100 KTS, which is not all that "hot". Stopping never seems to be
a much of a concern - especially with its excellent pneumatic brakes. It is not a
STOL aircraft and wasn't designed with short field performance in mind. One
shouldn't forget they are all basically 1950 models. The reworking of the airframe
and the newer generation power plants and propeller on the F50 make them another
matter entirely.
Cheers - veritas
veritas <nospam@no-spam> writes
>I believe that the
>F27
>has adequate propeller braking with its "ground fine" setting. It is a small
>airliner (around 36,000 LBS if I recall correctly) and comes "over the fence"
>between 80 KTS and 100 KTS, which is not all that "hot". Stopping never seems
>to be
>a much of a concern - especially with its excellent pneumatic brakes. It is not
>a
>STOL aircraft and wasn't designed with short field performance in mind.
Given where I've flown on F27s (Argentine Air Force, oil company air
service in Oman) the length of runway required comes as something of a
surprise:
Nominal required runway lengths with standard loads and at similar
altitudes and temperatures, according to "Assisting in
Emergencies/UNICEF 1986"
Twin Otter 220 m
Fokker F.27 1,200 m
Hercules L.100-30 1,400 m
This explains the background to a small incident in Oman. The national
oil company (PDO) operated a small air service with F27s. PDO built a
network of tarmac airstrips complete with fire appliances for these to
operate out of.
While I was visiting an exploration crew there, one of the surveyors had
a heart attack. Unable to locate him before dusk, he stayed out all
night with his vehicle. The following morning he was taken in the crew
ambulance over bumpy desert tracks for three hours to the nearest
airstrip, where an F27 was held for him. He was taken to a hospital in
Masqat, and made a full recovery.
At the camp, we had previously dozered a short (300m or so) airstrip for
medevac use. I've always sort of idly wondered why they didn't land the
F27 on our airstrip and save the casualty a difficult and dangerous
journey. Now I know!
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
Pits wrote in message <3f0ca1c0@no-spam>...
>"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:beghpf$4d5lf$1@no-spam
>> Pits wrote in message <3f0b43aa@no-spam>...
>> >"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:beeafh$43f7l$1@no-spam
>> >RT!! Just having a peek at this thread. Honestly cobber I think your on
a
>> >hiding to nothing here.
>> >I have a sneaking feeling that Veritas may just have a tad more
>experience
>> >and
>> >knowledge than he lets on. He certainly writes more appropriatly.
>> >However, there was NO "raging" inferno as you keep saying.
>> Oh Jesus......... WTFH do you think I used inverted commas?
>CLUNK!! ( sound of penny dropping:-) Ok fair enough.
:-)
>> But that's the whole point - if there WAS no "raging" inferno then it was
>> cavelier/wanton/careless/choose your own adjective to sool poor tottery
>ole
>> grannies down chutes *particularly* if as it now appears 30% of the pax
>had
>> already disembarked by the usual, safe, air-conditioned airbridge before
>> someone at ground level mentioned a bitta smoke coming off one truck.
>One of the god things about this forum is that it does open discussion
>and i guess all aspects will be looked at via the investigation team.
>One aspect that is an not yet an exact science is
>human and behavioural factors being able to transmit
>into learned behaviour when not all facts are known.
>
>As you know fire and smoke toxic considerations
>are fast and insidious killers .
>
>Re the grannies down slides etc is one of those situation in hindsight
>that will be considered. However, my view is that the Capt perhaps
>did not have all data to make an informed decision and instead took the
safe
>way in a rsk assesment sense (given the paucity of data that is now
>appearing
>to be given to him) So still think from that perception the call was the
>best one.
>> >Obviously you have had some fire training as I recall you stated .
>> >But You obviously have not had command time in a RPT aircraft.
>> You're quite right - but I was unaware that idiocy was a prerequisite for
>> command time in an RPT aircraft...
>Think the above is a tad emotive and a wee bit strong . Please remember
>perception and situational awarness factors of the Commander from the data
>or apparent lack of it given to him. The fact that a tube (aero bridge)
also
>had
>folks in it why not think of it as another deployed slide ? albeit said to
>be on the side of the fire .
C'mon Pits........ You are disembarking pax via airbridge. 30% of 'em
are already off. Some possum down at ground level says there's smoke coming
off a truck. You pop slides and send the remaining grannies down 2 floors
into a completely open environment beside/in a fire zone of unknown
intensity rather than let them continue to disembark in air conditioned
comfort and protected from fire via the airbridge which is already in
operation. Blardy hell...........
>> >What do you do for a crust RT? Just interested .
>> At the moment? Nothing :-) But I do have a coupla engineering degrees,
>a
>> commercial, a buncha LAME licences, and have been engine o/h and prop o/h
>> signatory.
>> And you?
>Well rounded there cobber Why not work at the moment?
Just completed a short term (2 year) contract as senior research engineer -
busy filling in forms for another contract :-)
>Thought we were short of lames?
Prolly - but lately I've been earning a bit more than you (as in "I") can
get with a toolbox :-)
>Pushing paper sort of at the moment also a couple of degrees
>and Yonks ago Rotary wing CPL.
>Now in the scrub involved in Agri Finance and technology transfer.
>Oh, and a bitta fiery training :-) also :)
Anyone in the scrub needs the firey training :-)
And Agri-finance sounds as though it's ulcer country - or close to it.......
tho I suppose after rotary CPL anything else except maybe suicide bombing
would seem quite relaxing.......
Simon Elliott wrote:
> veritas <nospam@no-spam> writes
>
>>I believe that the
>>F27
>>has adequate propeller braking with its "ground fine" setting. It is a small
>>airliner (around 36,000 LBS if I recall correctly) and comes "over the fence"
>>between 80 KTS and 100 KTS, which is not all that "hot". Stopping never seems
>>to be
>>a much of a concern - especially with its excellent pneumatic brakes. It is not
>>a
>>STOL aircraft and wasn't designed with short field performance in mind.
>
>
> Given where I've flown on F27s (Argentine Air Force, oil company air
> service in Oman) the length of runway required comes as something of a
> surprise:
>
> Nominal required runway lengths with standard loads and at similar
> altitudes and temperatures, according to "Assisting in
> Emergencies/UNICEF 1986"
>
> Twin Otter 220 m
STOL Aircraft
> Fokker F.27 1,200 m
Not a STOL Aircraft
> Hercules L.100-30 1,400 m
STOL Aircraft
>
> This explains the background to a small incident in Oman. The national
> oil company (PDO) operated a small air service with F27s. PDO built a
> network of tarmac airstrips complete with fire appliances for these to
> operate out of.
>
> While I was visiting an exploration crew there, one of the surveyors had
> a heart attack. Unable to locate him before dusk, he stayed out all
> night with his vehicle. The following morning he was taken in the crew
> ambulance over bumpy desert tracks for three hours to the nearest
> airstrip, where an F27 was held for him. He was taken to a hospital in
> Masqat, and made a full recovery.
>
> At the camp, we had previously dozered a short (300m or so) airstrip for
> medevac use. I've always sort of idly wondered why they didn't land the
> F27 on our airstrip and save the casualty a difficult and dangerous
> journey. Now I know!
Yes. As I indicated (under your figures) above - and you have already noted that
there is quite a difference between "conventional" and "STOL" performance aircraft.
The F27 doesn't normally operate in a utility category although (sometimes) it
would be capable of operating on shorter strips it would not be permissible on RPT ops.
More often than not - it would be the take-off (and not the stopping) distance that
would be the runway length limiter.
veritas
>
veritas <nospam@no-spam> wrote in news:3F0E3FE1.6060006@no-spam
> Simon Elliott wrote:
>> Twin Otter 220 m
> STOL Aircraft
MTOW circa 5700Kg. At MTOW, lifts 25Kg per metre of runway.
STOL?
>> Fokker F.27 1,200 m
> Not a STOL Aircraft
MTOW circa 20,400Kg. At MTOW 17Kg/metre of runway.
Not STOL?
>> Hercules L.100-30 1,400 m
> STOL Aircraft
MTOW circa 79,400Kg. At MTOW 56Kg/metre of runway.
Definitely STOL!
Bob
RT wrote:
> Coop wrote in message <3F06F6BD.79F88F71@no-spam>...
> >JB wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> What is it with this reverse thrust myth? It makes some noise, and makes
> >> some people feel good. And on a wet runway with a crosswind, it can be
> your
> >> worst enemy.
> >
> >JB,
> >>From inside the cabin it sounds impressive, and there is a noticeable
> increase
> >in braking at the same time. From what you say, I guess this is due to the
> RT
> >making the wheel braking more effective (due reduced lift, and killing the
> >forward thrust) but the timing makes it feel like its the reverse thrust
> that's
> >doing it. So I guess that perpetuates the myth among those of us who don't
> get
> >to do it from the front seats.....
> >First time I saw the thrust buckets do their thing on the early 737's I
> thought
> >the back end of the engine had jumped off.....now that was impressive......
>
> (Um - you don't mean 7*2*7s?)
>
> Was in something or other a coupla weeks ago and whoever was landing musta
> decided to stretch their legs on roll out. For a few seconds that thing
> REALLY decellerated! Very impressive! Didn't know heavies could slow
> down so dramatically - bloody near put tooth marks on the fold-down table
> :-)
Last time I looked, you can't see the back of the engines on a 727 (with or
without asterisks) from the passenger cabin. No, I was referring to the early
model 737's which did have reverse thrust buckets. If you had ever seen them
leap into position, you would know what I was talking about.... They make a
noticeable Clang! as they come together which is audible from the cabin if you
are sitting nearby.
Land and hold short operations tend to produce that "tooth mark" effect, I've
noticed.
Regards,
Coop
Smiling Bob <smilingbob@no-spam> writes
>veritas <nospam@no-spam> wrote in news:3F0E3FE1.6060006@no-spam
>>> Twin Otter 220 m
>> STOL Aircraft
>
>MTOW circa 5700Kg. At MTOW, lifts 25Kg per metre of runway.
>STOL?
>
>>> Fokker F.27 1,200 m
>> Not a STOL Aircraft
>
>MTOW circa 20,400Kg. At MTOW 17Kg/metre of runway.
>Not STOL?
>
>>> Hercules L.100-30 1,400 m
>> STOL Aircraft
>
>MTOW circa 79,400Kg. At MTOW 56Kg/metre of runway.
>Definitely STOL!
Your numbers are MTOW/metres of runway for takeoff?
Unfortunately I missed out on a trip to Siberia where Volga-Dnieper
moved an entire seismic crew with all their vehicles in a single
aircraft.
AN22 MTOW 226000Kg min runway length for takeoff 1460m (paved)
At MTOW 154Kg/metre of runway.
I wonder if any of the newer turbofan powered transports can better
that? (AN124? C5?)
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
veritas wrote in message <3F0E3FE1.6060006@no-spam>...
>
>
>Simon Elliott wrote:
>> veritas <nospam@no-spam> writes
>>
>>>a much of a concern - especially with its excellent pneumatic brakes.
Mmmm - someone like to rabbit on about the relevant differences/advantages
of hydraulics/pneumatics - ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PNEUMATICS RUN AT 4000 PSI?
>>>It is not
>>>a
>>>STOL aircraft and wasn't designed with short field performance in mind.
>>
>>
>> Given where I've flown on F27s (Argentine Air Force, oil company air
>> service in Oman) the length of runway required comes as something of a
>> surprise:
>>
>> Nominal required runway lengths with standard loads and at similar
>> altitudes and temperatures, according to "Assisting in
>> Emergencies/UNICEF 1986"
>>
>> Twin Otter 220 m
>STOL Aircraft
>
>> Fokker F.27 1,200 m
>Not a STOL Aircraft
>
>> Hercules L.100-30 1,400 m
>STOL Aircraft
">> Fokker F.27 1,200 m
>Not a STOL Aircraft
>> Hercules L.100-30 1,400 m
>STOL Aircraft"
>More often than not - it would be the take-off (and not the stopping)
distance that
>would be the runway length limiter.
Do tell........... Hooda thort it?
And now we can see straight orf why the F27 isn't - but the L100 is - STOL.
Prolly the Boeing 747 and Concorde are STOL too - as they have a much
longer T/O run than either the L100 or F27
Sheesh
"vegitas" - "pravda"
One is Latin - one is Russian.
Both are bullshit.
"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
> Mmmm - someone like to rabbit on about the relevant differences/advantages
> of hydraulics/pneumatics - ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PNEUMATICS RUN AT 4000 PSI?
Really? Sure your not talking about the hydraulics operating at 4000psi?
I would have thought if actuator circuit was pneumatic it would be operating
at a few hundred psi.
With an actuator having a control gain of 20 to 30 the hydraulic circuit
would have a corresponding pressure of around 4000psi.
Cheers,
John
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:33:51 GMT, "JB" <jb0767@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Vector" <victavector@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:fmtagv000gm5hh9le5ekq5l8mhjvlkbh95@no-spam
>
>> AFAIK YSSY was wet when VH-OJU landed - and failed to use reverse
>> thrust.
>
>It used idle reverse thrust. Full reverse thrust is banned in Sydney for
>early morning arrivals.
>
Aren't you thus confirming the initial post in the thread?
"John Ewing" <John@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0a7d84$0$9355$afc38c87@no-spam
>
> "Simon Elliott" <simon@no-spam> wrote in message
> >
> > I wonder if the same is true with reverse pitch on propeller aircraft?
> > It always seems to stop Twin Otters, F27s and AN24s pretty dramatically
> > even on surfaces where you wouldn't imagine that brakes would work too
> > well. But I don't know how hard the pilot was applying the brakes at the
> > time...
> > --
> > Simon Elliott
> > http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
>
> Reverse pitch on a propeller is very effective compared with the previous
> described alternatives for jets.
> As JB mentioned the thrust vector on jets is at an angle to the direction
of
> travel, so only some of the thrust is effective.
> With a propellor all the reverse thrust is effective thrust.
>
bare in mind that about the inner 1/3 of propellor is in Alpha, other wise
on piston acft
you would cook the engines.
Even with props. most of slowing is via the wheel brakes.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:45:10 +1000, Graeme Hogan wrote:
> bare in mind
Hear here!!
the prop shafts are essentially round, tapering out to airfoil shape for the
inner 1/3 (probably actually about 1/4 length) so the air passes straight
thru.
"Simon Elliott" <simon@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Ml3mMHA5OBH$Iw2B@no-spam
> Graeme Hogan <ghogan01@no-spam> writes
> >bare in mind that about the inner 1/3 of propellor is in Alpha, other
wise
> >on piston acft
> >you would cook the engines.
>
> Makes sense. But how does the pitch adjustment manage to rotate the
> outer part of the airscrew blade without rotating the inner third?
> --
> 'Jack can you hear me? I think there's a leak somewhere in the hydraulic
system.
> It's running down my bloody neck.'
> 'Bruce.' A long pause. 'Bruce. Don't quite know how to put this. You know
our
> crew "piss-tin"?' == Bruce Lewis,
"Aircrew"
>
>
>
>
>
Simon Elliott <simon@no-spam> writes:
> Makes sense. But how does the pitch adjustment manage to rotate the
> outer part of the airscrew blade without rotating the inner third?
The prop doesn't have a constant AoA - take a look, the AoA decreases
towards the tip. This makes sense when you consider the inner part
of the prop moves at a much slower (linear) speed than the outside
bit. So it is possible (in fact, inevitable) that the inner portion
will still have positive alpha when the overall prop is feathered or
even in beta.