[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by M2siast

What’s the 787 called? I love that plane

"Sparky" or the "Electric Jet".

I forgot that one, so I edited the list.

The name came about because when it was first introduced it had a tendency to burn up battery boxes and catch on fire.

R.

[dradernh]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

"Sparky" or the "Electric Jet".

I forgot that one, so I edited the list.

The name came about because when it was first introduced it had a tendency to burn up battery boxes and catch on fire.

R.

A friend worked at an extremely high scientific level on that problem. The last I recall (I'm working off a fairly vague memory here), they could not establish a resolvable cause and so they created an acceptable workaround.

Knowing the academic and scientific background of my friend, and after having heard the little bit of the specifics of the issue he was able to share, I was surprised to learn his team couldn't nail it down better than that.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

and make sure you've completed your checklists for the emergency, emergency return, overweight landing, and normal descent/approach checklists, etc. and done everything you can think of to manage the problem and land safely

Incident shortly after take-off, no fuel jettison (fuel dump) capability and no time to hold pattern to burn fuel to achieve maximum landing weight at touchdown. So if max fueled, pilots had to inevitably handle an overweight landing (exceeding the MLW) attempting to avoid a runway excursion.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Incident shortly after take-off, no fuel jettison (fuel dump) capability and no time to hold pattern to burn fuel to achieve maximum landing weight at touchdown. So if max fueled, pilots had to inevitably handle an overweight landing (exceeding the MLW) attempting to avoid a runway excursion.

1. You're hardly ever "max fuel" in a 737. More fuel equals less payload (i.e. paying cargo or passengers), so you only take what you need. The amount is calculated by the airline Dispatcher with the concurrence of the Captain. You need the fuel to get where you're going, fuel for an Alternate (if required), and FAA/FAR Reserve- plus a bit for APU usage and taxiing to the runway. The only time I've ever taken maximum fuel on a 737 was going from Newark to San Diego in the winter and into the wind-- I had about three minutes of extra fuel (according to the flight plan), and that was with tanks filled to the brim. Luckily, I was able to taxi out quickly (which saved gas) and got some Direct clearances that saved me a little more-- my other option if I burned more than planed was to drop into Denver for a fuel stop.

Bonus Trivia: The shortest distance between two points (e.g. Newark to San Diego) is NOT a straight line. You have to consider Great Circle (distance measured on a sphere) as well as winds and weather. Winds in the US usually blow generally W to E-- so even though you might spend more time flying a longer distance out of the wind, you'll save gas rather than going directly into the wind-- it's sort of counter-intuitive, but that's how it works. That's why on a winter East to West coast flight, you might find yourself over the Dakota's instead of down near Colorado.

2. Pretty much the only jets that have dump capability are the big ones-- 747, 777, 787, etc. The smaller 737 & 320 types don't have the capability, as you noted.

3. Maximum landing weight is what Boeing has called a "Bought Weight"; i.e. you can buy the data for a higher landing gross weight-- it only costs money. Realistically, if you can take off, you can land (assuming available runway). You have an overweight checklist, but it pretty much says to just watch your sink rate and to write it up for maintenance. The maintenance guys will take about 1-1.5 hours to do a check of the aircraft-- it's honestly not a big event.

3a. FAR's (which govern pretty much everything in aviation) require that the aircraft can safely land at 10 feet per second (Ow!) at max landing weight and 6 feet per second at max takeoff weight. A normal landing is around 1-2 feet per second. So, as long as you keep your sink rate AT TOUCHDOWN less than 3-400 feet per minute, it's a non-event as far as the aircraft is concerned.

4b. Runway available on an emergency return is usually not a problem for the Guppy; in the 737 world, there really aren't that many runways that are short and sketchy-- as in a handful. And most of them are fairly close to great big ones-- an example is John Wayne/Santa Ana. It's got a 5700' runway. Would I emergency return there above max landing weight? No-- not unless I was on fire, I couldn't put it out, and I had no other options. Instead, there's about 12,000' of runway 36 miles away that I'd aim for (I'm looking at you, LAX).

4. I this situation, I wouldn't dump (even if I could) or Hold (delay) to get down to maximum landing weight-- for all I know up in the cockpit, the tail may be about to fall off. As well, I have a bunch of very scared, very cold and very windblown passengers back there-- get the jet on the ground as soon as you safely can, but don't be stupid-- in other words, take the time to run your checklists, make sure everything you can do has been done, and be ready to successfully fly the approach and landing.

R.

[Alfisti]

This is fascinating shit FBJ. have you ever had a situation on a commercial flight where you thought "I'm in trouble here".

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Joralemon st.

Shit, this is why I wear my safety belt the entire flight, unless I need to get up.

I have worn my belt while seated for many years, but after the incident with the window blowing out of the Southwest jet (I fly Southwest most often) I stopped sitting by a window. I’m a little claustrophobic and the aisle seat definitely feels more airy, so I shoot for an aisle seat now. But, fortunately, I have a smaller build and I’m only 5’8” so I’m okay in a middle seat if necessary. Flying is the one time I never wish I was a little taller.

My primary reason for keeping my belt on is I do not want to go flying around if the plane hits unexpected turbulence.

[Joralemon st.]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

I have worn my belt while seated for many years, but after the incident with the window blowing out of the Southwest jet (I fly Southwest most often) I stopped sitting by a window. I’m a little claustrophobic and the aisle seat definitely feels more airy, so I shoot for an aisle seat now. But, fortunately, I have a smaller build and I’m only 5’8” so I okay in a middle seat if necessary. Flying is the one time I never wish I was a little taller.

My primary reason for keeping my belt on is I do not want to go flying around if the plane hits unexpected turbulence.

With my fear of flying I try to sit as much towards the center of the plane as I can, however since I usually get basic economy — that often times means middle seat. Of course between the Xanax and the TRTL — it doesn't matter much to me

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Joralemon st.

With my fear of flying I try to sit as much towards the center of the plane as I can, however since I usually get basic economy — that often times means middle seat. Of course between the Xanax and the TRTL — it doesn't matter much to me

I used not to think much about it when I’d fly, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve become a more nervous flyer. Particularly on takeoff and a little bit on landing. On takeoff I hold on to the armrests very tightly. Because, of course, if anything happens that will save me. I don’t worry too much about falling out of the sky from 30,000 feet, but I’m more aware these days that if something goes wrong on takeoff (particularly with the engines) there’s almost no time to fix it. I guess this incident should actually ease my mind a little regarding the ability to recover from something during takeoff. It’s pretty amazing what these airframes can handle. I’m thinking of the Hawaii Airlines catastrophic airframe failure many years ago and the time a cargo door failed on a 747 and tore out a huge section of the forward cabin and both of those planes landed safely.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

My primary reason for keeping my belt on is I do not want to go flying around if the plane hits unexpected turbulence.

EXCELLENT plan.

[Joralemon st.]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

I used to not think much about it when I’d fly, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve become a more nervous flyer. Particularly on takeoff and a little bit on landing. On takeoff I hold on to the armrests very tightly. Because, of course, if anything happens that will save me. I don’t worry too much about falling out of the sky from 30,000 feet, but I’m more aware these days that if something goes wrong on takeoff (particularly with the engines) there’s almost no time to fix it. I guess this incident should actually ease my mind a little. It’s pretty amazing what these airframes can handle. I’m thinking of the Hawaii Airlines catastrophic airframe failure many years ago and the time a cargo door failed on a 747 and tore out a huge section of the forward cabin and both of those planes landed safely.

Those are the scariest moments for me as well — I'm usually pretty indifferent to the flight itself — but that drop as you're climbing — FML. Of course with Xanax, or a lot of cognac if it's business class — I fall asleep right as we take off)))

Oh yea, I torture myself with these disaster videos. That Aloha airlines is one hell of a mayday!

The only 747s that come to mind are flight 800 and of course the Pan Am bombing, but neither of those landed...

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Joralemon st.

Those are the scariest moments for me as well — I'm usually pretty indifferent to the flight itself — but that drop as you're climbing — FML. Of course with Xanax, or a lot of cognac if it's business class — I fall asleep right as we take off)))

Oh yea, I torture myself with these disaster videos. That Aloha airlines is one hell of a mayday!

The only 747s that come to mind are flight 800 and of course the Pan Am bombing, but neither of those landed...

Just to add to your fear. In this case wearing our seat belts in those particular seats would not have made a difference. United Airlines flight 811.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

This is fascinating shit FBJ. have you ever had a situation on a commercial flight where you thought "I'm in trouble here".

Nope. The airlines (despite Boeing's best efforts lately) are AMAZINGLY safe and the maintenance on them is usually pretty spectacular. NOTHING is done without authorization/paper trail-- EVERYTHING has to be documented, and there's a procedure or a "you can/can not fly with this" list for pretty much every piece of equipment on the airplane.

I've been terrified in the jet..... but that was simply because my New Hire First Officer was having a bad day (and the solution there is to take over and then send them off for additional training before letting them near the jet again).

The military? A little bit of a different animal-- but that usually involved people who didn't much like me trying to either blow me out of the sky or shoot a bunch of holes in my jet. The other difference is that in the airlines, whenever you have an emergency the FAA/FAR's direct that you MUST "land at the nearest suitable airport in point of time". In the military, maybe not so much. I'm NOT going to land where the Bad Guys are if there's any possibility of another solution (besides, my jet had four engines-- losing one usually just meant that it was a Tuesday).

R.

[Alfisti]

LOL fuck i'm a soft bastard.

I do a LOT of long haul flying, proper long haul .... and I always have my belt on. Often loose but there in just we hit a pocket and she drops it saves whacking the ceiling. One of the great pieces of artistry is securing a toddler with a seatbelt after 8 hours of screaming and finally fallen asleep across the pacific.

[Joralemon st.]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

Just to add to your fear. In this case wearing our seat belts in those particular seats would not have made a difference. United Airlines flight 811.

Ah, yes — I do remember this shit show...

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Joralemon st.

Ah, yes — I do remember this shit show...

Here's another one for you. Aloha 243 in the late '80's.

Unbelievably enough, despite many injuries there was only one fatality.

The flight attendant who was in the aisle got sucked out of the jet.

Bad juju.

R.

[Joralemon st.]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Here's another one for you. Aloha 243 in the late '80's.

Unbelievably enough, despite many injuries there was only one fatality.

The flight attendant who was in the aisle got sucked out of the jet.

Bad juju.

R.

Yup, we mentioned this one... Oddly enough — the day that the door got torn out of the Alaskan flight — I was on a flight from Hawaii! Coincidence?

[M2siast]

Fixed

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

As well, I have a bunch of very scared, very cold and very windblown passengers back there

Larson...

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

It's been a while, but let's see:

The 727 was the "Jurassic Jet".

The 737-200 was the "Steam-Driven" Guppy.

The -300 and -500 were "Yuppie Guppies".

The DC-10 was the "Death Cruiser".

The 747-200 was the "Ropestart".

The 747-400 was the "Whale".

The 777 is either "Bigfoot" or the "Starship".

The A319 & 320 are "Fifi".

The 787 is "Sparky" or the "Electric Jet".

Curiously, I've never really heard a term at my company for the 757 or for the NG/Max Guppies.

However, after the merger, the guys who's logo looked like a cage considered "Guppy" to be a pejorative, and were glad to tell you that over the radio if you called it a "Guppy" on an ATC or Ramp frequency. The guys with the tulip logo always considered (and do so to this day) it as a term of affection.

R.

The 737-300 reminded me of a "war" story. Western had just taken delivery and asked me how long our diagonal runway (32 @ SLC before they built the far west runway) was. I told him 54xx (why do I remember that over 35 years later ) and he said the book said that was long enough and asked if he could use it; I said of course. He stopped at the end and said don't EVER let him do that again!

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Here’s a NTSB update with a good drawing of the aft door plug:

https://airwaysmag.com/ntsb-as1282-e...-stops-failed/

"Aviation experts raise questions about 737 Max ‘door plug’ design"
CNN - Jan 11, 2024
https://edition.cnn.com/business/boe...max/index.html

"In the aftermath of last week’s Alaska Airlines in-flight emergency, some aviation experts are questioning the structural design of the section of the Boeing 737 Max 9 that blew off the plane.
On that January 5 flight, a “door plug” – a portion of the plane’s fuselage the manufacturer can put in place instead of an emergency exit door – detached from the plane and was later discovered in an Oregon backyard.
In interviews with CNN, some experts argued that if that door plug were designed to be larger than the opening it covers and installed inside the plane, the force of the pressurized air in the passenger cabin would force the plug against the plane’s interior frame and a situation such as the one on the Alaska Airlines flight could have been avoided. However, such a design could have added costs and practical disadvantages, some said."

"FAA opens investigation into Boeing quality control after Alaska Airlines incident"
CNN - Jan 11, 2024
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/11/b...ent/index.html

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Artemis

"Aviation experts raise questions about 737 Max ‘door plug’ design"
CNN - Jan 11, 2024
https://edition.cnn.com/business/boe...max/index.html

"In the aftermath of last week’s Alaska Airlines in-flight emergency, some aviation experts are questioning the structural design of the section of the Boeing 737 Max 9 that blew off the plane.
On that January 5 flight, a “door plug” – a portion of the plane’s fuselage the manufacturer can put in place instead of an emergency exit door – detached from the plane and was later discovered in an Oregon backyard.
In interviews with CNN, some experts argued that if that door plug were designed to be larger than the opening it covers and installed inside the plane, the force of the pressurized air in the passenger cabin would force the plug against the plane’s interior frame and a situation such as the one on the Alaska Airlines flight could have been avoided. However, such a design could have added costs and practical disadvantages, some said."

"FAA opens investigation into Boeing quality control after Alaska Airlines incident"
CNN - Jan 11, 2024
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/11/b...ent/index.html

Attachment 3362512

This makes so much sense it’s more than a little mind boggling that isn’t what happened.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

This makes so much sense it’s more than a little mind boggling that isn’t what happened.

"However, such a design could have added costs and practical disadvantages, some said."

Pretty sure I just highlighted the important part of that message from Boeing's point of view.

R.