For those who like Aircraft pictures

[Jeff Smith]

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

Yes there's something about pre-war De Havilland aeroplanes.  G-ADNE apparently lives at Oaksey Park and you can buy a share if you like (unless someone else has by now).

During my apprenticeship at R-R Leavesden in the late 60s I spent many hours stripping and rebuilding ex-De Havilland straight 4 and 6 engines, both upright and inverted (the engines not me).  For stripping they were suspended over a tank to catch any oil, much of which came down my arms first - and the smell was pretty overpowering.  At that time they were still overhauling Gyron Juniors, Ghosts and a few Goblins......

Edited May 3, 2023 by Jeff Smith

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Delta has most of the remaining B717s

Qantas still has a fleet of B717s but probably not for much longer, as they are planned to be replaced by A220s.

[Kickstart]

On 30/04/2023 at 07:50, jjb1970 said:

Some pics in New Delhi Indira Gandhi airport today.

 

 

 

Wondered why these were all out of service, then notice that today the airline has gone into bankruptcy, seemingly due to a lot of engine problems:-

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65465542

 

All the best

 

Katy

[jjb1970]

The COMAC ARJ-21 is a relative of the DC-9/MD8x/MD9x/717, I know China claims it is all their own work but it seems to be an MD90 with new engines and avionics and an Antonov designed super-critical wing.

[PMP]

On the subject of 73’s here’s a -200 coal burner still in use in Canada, a few notable mods with it having a gravel kit fitted and eyebrow windows removed.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CrsyPBiLxVxjkfOk4Q_cAFMPD-MBMCNxLecITk0/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Kickstart said:

 

Wondered why these were all out of service, then notice that today the airline has gone into bankruptcy, seemingly due to a lot of engine problems:-

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65465542

 

All the best

 

Katy

Interesting that other operators aren’t having similar significant engine issues. One suspects it’s not as simple as the headline suggests..

[St Enodoc]

Outgoing Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, was quoted in today's press as saying the the toughest decision he ever had to make was to ground his A-380 fleet when one of QF32's engines failed, in 2010.

 

Personalty, I would have thought that would have been one of the easiest decisions he would have to make...

[Kickstart]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

Interesting that other operators aren’t having similar significant engine issues. One suspects it’s not as simple as the headline suggests..

 

I did read something elsewhere that the Indian aviation regulator had grounded the aircraft due to significant numbers of failures, pending modification. But there also appear to be reports of supply issues from Pratt and Witney. So at a guess the required modified engines haven't been available.

 

Older article here:-

 

https://www.businesstoday.in/industry/aviation/story/indigo-warning-for-airbus-a320neo-planes-faulty-engines-dgca-238476-2019-11-01

 

All the best

 

Katy

[PMP]

In terms of other operators I was meaning the likes of eayJet etc whom haven’t had significant downtime due to serviceability. Supply problems can sometimes be attributed to the customer not supplying money to buy the spares, so they go to the lowest priority. The Indian and Pakistani aviation industries have recently been suffering from significant corruption and appropriate licensing issues too, I wouldn’t be surprised if these were additional factors.

[Kickstart]

Looks like Easyjet use CFM engines father than P&W (looks like CFM have the majority of the A320 Neo market), and P&W seem to be suffering with supply issues but claiming they have sufficient capacity to cover Boeing and Airbus orders. Possibly suggests that spare parts are lower priority and they don't have capacity for those.

 

Seem to be some suggestions that the Indian pilots have been pushing the engines more, but how much is in that I have no idea.

 

There are claims the problems have been solved on later engines, but that leaves earlier engines to still be upgraded. The A220 (using a P&W engine from the same family) had similar issues

 

All the best

 

Katy

[J. S. Bach]

5 hours ago, PMP said:

On the subject of 73’s here’s a -200 coal burner still in use in Canada, a few notable mods with it having a gravel kit fitted and eyebrow windows removed.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CrsyPBiLxVxjkfOk4Q_cAFMPD-MBMCNxLecITk0/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

That link is broken according to I-G.

[rob D2]

3 hours ago, Kickstart said:

Looks like Easyjet use CFM engines father than P&W (looks like CFM have the majority of the A320 Neo market), and P&W seem to be suffering with supply issues but claiming they have sufficient capacity to cover Boeing and Airbus orders. Possibly suggests that spare parts are lower priority and they don't have capacity for those.

 

Seem to be some suggestions that the Indian pilots have been pushing the engines more, but how much is in that I have no idea.

 

There are claims the problems have been solved on later engines, but that leaves earlier engines to still be upgraded. The A220 (using a P&W engine from the same family) had similar issues

 

All the best

 

Katy

Interesting,

In terms of pushing the engines more, all the calculations for take off thrust are performed by software packages which can come from a variety of sources - Boeing do their own, Lufthansa flight planning another etc.

 

If the Indians were regularly flying out of “hot and high “ airfields by the nature of that the engines will be at a higher power setting than say, heathrow, with almost 4km of runway and nothing in the way of terrain if an engine quits on take off 

[PMP]

1 hour ago, J. S. Bach said:

That link is broken according to I-G.

Apologies just noted it’s a private account, so you have to follow them to see it.

However, here’s a similar image

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Canadian-North/Boeing-737-275C-Adv/1693282

 

and you can see this one is a Combi too freight/passenger and the gravel kit, including the vortex dissipators on the engine cowling and the skids and modified nose gear door area to deflect ‘stuff’ 

[jjb1970]

https://simpleflying.com/a320neo-engine-troubles/

 

Another article, an older one too, indicating the engine issue has been rumbling for quite a while.

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

What do you make of this?

 

Brian

 

 

[PMP]

^^ Unusual certainly.

The Malay would have been given a line up clearance to enter the runway behind the BA. We can’t see what the BA Airbus did, (presumably departed normally), but it’s the captain’s decision as to how close he gets to a departing aircraft ahead once that line up clearance is given, no need for ATC to have a word with the Malay as no risk of collision. 
Due to sequence of aircraft sizes there’s unlikely to be wake vortex implications so when the BA is airborne, the Malay can be cleared for takeoff.

Edited May 8, 2023 by PMP
Add last para

[BMacdermott]

Thanks PMP

 

My understanding would be that - once the BA plane had actually started rolling - clearance would be given: "Behind the departing BA (type), line and wait Runway Two Seven Right behind".

 

According to Big Jet TV, there was no ATC 'fault'.

 

But I do wonder if it was 'sensible' for the Malaysian to take the action he did.

 

Brian

[PMP]

19 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Thanks PMP

 

My understanding would be that - once the BA plane had actually started rolling - clearance would be given: "Behind the departing BA (type), line and wait Runway Two Seven Right behind".

 

According to Big Jet TV, there was no ATC 'fault'.

 

But I do wonder if it was 'sensible' for the Malaysian to take the action he did.

 

Brian

There’s no stipulation on the preceding aircraft having had to start its roll. Not doubting his enthusiasm, but I wouldn’t take anything said by Big Jet TV as ‘informed’ in any way. 
The Malay line up timing doesn’t strike me as the best piece of ‘airmanship’ I’ve ever seen. The BA would be rolling for roughly 30-40secs before airborne, so Malay didn’t really achieve anything by lining up directly behind.

Edited May 8, 2023 by PMP
Word change

[BMacdermott]

Hello PMP

 

Having re-read the notes on Big Jet, it does seem that that was his 'opinion'. I thought he had been 'informed' by someone with direct knowledge.

 

Agreed that the line-up was not good airmanship!

 

Brian

 

[scottystitch]

On 08/05/2023 at 10:22, BMacdermott said:

Hello everyone

 

What do you make of this?

 

Brian

 

 

I knew I had seen something about this in the Heathrow procedures before, but didn't want to comment until I had found it/proved I hadn't imagined it.

 

Paragraph 2 deals with conditional  line up clearance. "...may cross the runway holding point...upon receipt of clearance. There is no requirement for the subject aircraft to have commenced it's take-off roll before entering the runway.

 

This being the case, I'm not sure we can call into question the airmanship of the second aircraft.

 

Best

 

Scott..

 

 

[The Pilotman]

Two issues here;

1) was the Malaysian A350 allowed to do that? Yes (it would have been a conditional clearance)

2) was it good airmanship to get quite so close behind another aircraft? In my opinion, no. You’re not gaining anything; just ingesting the exhaust of the aircraft in front. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by The Pilotman

[BMacdermott]

Thanks Scottystitch and Pilotman

 

Paragraph 2 above seems to be the relevant one, and it does say at the end: Pilots must be aware that there may be a blast hazard as the ACFT on the RWY applies power.

 

My son has a PPL and is in touch with a number of commercial aircrew (not BA or Malaysian). One is an A350 First Officer. I asked him if would have 'queried' his Captain if he had been in that plane. He said he would, believing he did not have enough space (but understanding that it was Captain's decision). He felt that not many pilots would get that close.

 

I wonder if paragraph 2 is really relating to 'intersection departures' - there would a very reasonable distance between planes in that situation.

 

Brian

[rob D2]

In the US , I’d nose over the line a bit but not put any part of me in the jet wash.

As has been mentioned , you’ve a lot of c&ap coming back at you into pitot heads, TAT probes etc, and could give erroneous indications or even worse a blockage .

 

Im guessing the Malay captain “ knew where his car was parked “…;)

[scottystitch]

1 hour ago, The Pilotman said:

Two issues here;

1) was the Malaysian A350 allowed to do that? Yes

2) was it good airmanship to get quite so close behind another aircraft? In my opinion, no. You’re not gaining anything other than ingesting the exhaust of the aircraft in front. 

Regarding 2), my understanding of that procedure is that it isn’t there for the airman’s benefit, it’s there for ATC’s benefit and the efficient despatch of aircraft at busy times. 
 

Best

 

Scott. 

[The Pilotman]

9 minutes ago, scottystitch said:

Regarding 2), my understanding of that procedure is that it isn’t there for the airman’s benefit, it’s there for ATC’s benefit and the efficient despatch of aircraft at busy times. 
 

Best

 

Scott. 

At airports with high intensity runway operations (like Heathrow) it is expected that an aircraft will be ready to commence its take off run as soon as it is cleared by ATC to do so. It is simply not necessary to get right behind the aircraft on the runway (as shown in the video clip) in order to accomplish this. That video is the first time I’ve seen anyone do that. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by The Pilotman