Quantcast

Shit that happens with Airlines, thread

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,106
1,515
AK
Hit the jackpot today! Got the "you have something in your groin" picture on the body scanner! Free erotic massage followed. Then Delta lost my bag...it might show up late tonight?
 

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
31,483
2,470
Hit the jackpot today! Got the "you have something in your groin" picture on the body scanner! Free erotic massage followed. Then Delta lost my bag...it might show up late tonight?
should have told the groper your hands are not big enough to ride the ride...
 

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,359
907
East Bay, Cali
Hit the jackpot today! Got the "you have something in your groin" picture on the body scanner! Free erotic massage followed. Then Delta lost my bag...it might show up late tonight?
If I had the power to summon a boner on command in tense situations, this would be when I would use it.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,106
1,515
AK
Quite a few human factors failures are starting to show. It shouldn't require exceptional skills to figure out what is going on and fix the problem, like letting go of the elevator while trying to re-trim, that's just completely opposite of how anyone is going to react in a critical situation with the ground coming up.
 

rideit

Bob the Builder
Aug 24, 2004
7,247
1,849
In the cleavage of the Tetons
So, the flight from SLC to JXN was on an Airbus 319-100.
Impressively nice airplane...pretty roomy in steerage, brand new electronics, enjoyable experience compared to the old shitty planes that usually do that run.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
27,121
3,535
Riding the baggage carousel.
That sounds a lot like a maintenance issue not a Boeing issue. Just sayin.
No, that sounds like a crew issue:
"The aircraft had been in maintenance and the maintenance log noted that the left hand thrust reverser was inoperative," Bruce Landsberg, vice-chairman of the US National Transportation Safety Board, told a press conference on Sunday.

Mr Landsberg added that shortly before they landed, the pilots had asked to change to a runway which had equipment set up on it, and which therefore had less space available.

"We don't know what they were thinking or why that was their choice," he said.
Airplane can have a deactivated TR all damn day long, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to defer and address at another time. I don't know how it works in a 737, but on the airplanes I work on there is generally a note saying that with an inop TR a specific minimum landing distance is spelled out. Someone didn't read their Minimum Equipment List, were I to hazard a guess.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,106
1,515
AK
No, that sounds like a crew issue:


Airplane can have a deactivated TR all damn day long, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to defer and address at another time. I don't know how it works in a 737, but on the airplanes I work on there is generally a note saying that with an inop TR a specific minimum landing distance is spelled out. Someone didn't read their Minimum Equipment List, were I to hazard a guess.
Yes, landing distances (which crews have to calculate prior to landing and which dispatchers have to ensure are adequate prior to release) are predicated on no thrust-reversers. It is usually permissible to have them inoperative and fly the plane, assuming the approved procedures are followed for securing/disabling them. It is also possible to use one thrust reverser and get some reverse thrust to help with deceleration, such as in the case of a one-engine landing. If done appropriate, it doesn't kick you off the runway. A nearly 8000 foot runway should be plenty of distance, however with TR inoperative, it would be advisable to set autobrakes to a higher level. Consider that Alaska airlines flies 737s all day here in Alaska to 5000 and 6000' runways and somehow they don't go off the end every other month like some of the lower 48 carriers. Interestingly, their safey culture wasn't always this way, it was in most ways the polar opposite of this 30 years ago, but at some point they realized that to stay in business, you need to do it right and not have accidents. So it is possible to do this, but you have to do it right every time. You have to touch down at the right spot at the right speed and if you are too fast or not going to make the spot, you go around and try again (or go to your alternate airport). This reeks of gross incompetence at this point, landing with a 15 knot tailwind significantly above Vref. You can get a little lazy with tailwinds sometimes with turboprops because even without reversing the propeller pitch angle, when they go flat to "beta" it's still a massive amount of drag and you slow down pretty fast, it's way faster with reverse pitch and jets simply cannot compete here. The crew should be well aware what their minimum landing distance is, regulations usually require something like 160% of the manufacturer's stated numbers and this is something procedurally you verify before attempting landing.
 
Last edited: