Classic British Flight Sim

airboatr wrote:anyone have a opinion on the runway line thing???

I got the impression the fire went out when it ran out of magnesium wheel

There I had an opinion :shock:

I it had been a Boeing it would have gone off the runway with the 'auto rudder'



Garry

on the second vid i think he might need a quick fit fitter
at first wondered why there was liquid on the runway, then i noticed his landing gear. :shock:

DispatchDragon wrote:have to look up the chemicla properties of the paint - but Im sure if you applied enough heat and burning magnesium ......

It s a good thought though

Leif

Magnesium , yep that'll do it
just grind some up into a fine powder
and hit it witha good hot spark and ,>wammoo
or like I saw On I-95 (in so. florida)
a compact size car had broken a motor or transmssion
mount and caused a fire
the People escaped injury but the vehilce was a smoldering
cinder .
the investigators mentioned the use of this metal
and noted it's potential danger of burning when
a mechanical failure occurs causing abnormal friction
bathing itself in highly flamable transmission fluid
however, it seams to be an acceptible risk to the manufactures
Kept properly maintained, there shouldn't be a problem


and maybe the additive to the paint
that gives it the reflective properties

anywho I watched that live on TV (bluejet)
it was a bit unsetteling really. I was glad when it came to a stop

Garry Russell wrote:

airboatr wrote:anyone have a opinion on the runway line thing???

I got the impression the fire went out when it ran out of magnesium wheel

There I had an opinion :shock:

I it had been a Boeing it would have gone off the runway with the 'auto rudder'






Garry

or maybe the auto break function has a bug up it's arse
Ohh you want to stop fast .hows this .......
and it turns the front wheel into a plow break
hell why not just throw a ships anchor out the rear door
as well ............

Pure magnesium is highly flammable, you can just ignite a trip of it with a match and it will brun brightly and very quickly. Magnesium used in aeronautics is usually alloyed with Aluminium (I think, its certainly aloyed with something!) which amongst other things, has the effect of reducing its volatility. Scrappers have been known to inadvertantly ignite hulks when cutting on or near Mg alloy components!

Potassium, which is slightly higher up the reactive metals pecking order, will iginite spontaneously in air, and so it is usually kept under oil (it will also spontaneously ignite in water!).

DispatchDragon wrote:Boeing this Boeing that-- Chris for christsake man think
My aplogies for flaming my friend but sometimes you just stand up and scream ........hit me - Keep your comments about American this and American that to forums that have the same maturity as you show when you post these kind of things

When did I say AMERICAN or only BOEING?

For chrissake Lief, read my freakin' post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boeing...as do McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, BAe, BAC, and every other aircraft out there.

Where in there did I say anything about "East" being better than "West" or make any other comment other than Airbus does it differently than ANYONE else and that they knew that the failure mode was that way and did not document it properly for the crews, something that is REGULATED as required information to be published.

Sorry, but this is not the first time that you've seen the word Boeing in a sentence and excluded every word afterwards for your own purposes.

DispatchDragon wrote:1/. Boeing Engineering was directly responsible for the deaths of almost
400 japanese passengers when the aft bulkhead of a 747 was incorrectly
strap rivetted by BOEING engineers failed in flight.

The incorrect rivetting was done by JAL engineers and signed of by JAL engineers from the plans and instructions of Boeing Engineers. There was never any proof on the maintenance records that the Boeing Engineers actually inspected the repair nor signed off on it.

Source: Air Disasters: Including Dialogue from the Black Box, by: Marriott, Stewart, Sharpe

2/. There have been two MAJOR accidents in the US on Boeing 737s
caused By RHO incursions which Boeing publically dismisses as
ever happening - yet within 24 hrs of the USAir crash at PIT
they had every 737 in US Airs fleet inspected.

This conclusion is still debated by members within the NTSB and has never really been "closed" as there are still studies ongoing.

But in the same thread, is Boeing then to be suspected that when a BA 777 caught fire while fueling in 2001 after a fuel hose fell off the aircraft, Boeing immediately mandated an inspection of the coupling on the aircraft because the one on that aircraft had broken off the aircraft? There was no proof that it was anything more than a single failure, but Boeing instructed the inspection anyway. It should also be noted Boeing also ordered an immediate inspection of all of the Yaw Damper components and rudder actuators shortly after UA 533 because of the initial FDR readouts for all 737 operators, which showed no anomalies either. Nor did the USAir "RHO" event turn up anything untoward. Only the NTSB report pointed to the actuator and even at that, the FAA never issued an AD over it. Boeing redesigned the valve voluntarily prior to the issuance of the final report. One might say that it was to avoid having an AD issued or something underhanded, but at the same time, at least they "fixed" it. Airbus has still chosen not to address the concerns raised by the operators over the failure that occured on live TV.

3/. The Loss of a Silk Air 737 was attributed by BOEING as pilot error, as
in the Captain caused a mach upset at altitude killing himself and the
entire crew and passengers on purpose (Suicide). Later proven to be delamination of
horizontal tail skins due to inproper bonding at the Boeing plant

Can you show me that report? I follow 2 different forums which have threads on this issue, and none cite horizontal tail skin separation in the final report. The official report is that there is no evidence for any given reason. In fact, the only thing that cites the manufcaturer of anything (and in fact, it cites not Boeing, but Parker Hannifin as the responsible party) is a COURT ruling in 2004. That is not a valid source of cause as a court is not an expert in air accidents.

Not only that, but where is your information that Boeing was the one pushing for the pilot suicide theory? All of the articles I've found cite SilkAir and Singapore Police officials as the force behind the accusations.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silkair_Flight_185

I thought it was a bit over the top myself tbh. But finding all of this info in a retort post is just as bad.

Anyway back on topic. The second vid, was this the one where the passengers were watching themselves on the news on the headtrest tv screens?

Jonesy - and anyone else who took offence
My Apologies - but ..

1/. The sign on the door says "Classic British" of which neither Boeing
or Airbus fit.
2/. The statements about the A320s problem with nosewheel steering
have been aired here before more than once..and when they are
the same post comes up about it.
3/. Even though I live in the US at times I get a little weary of hearing
how American products are bigger faster better etc etc.
4/. Over the top or not - I stand by what I said - lets just leave off the
Boeing is better notion which I have seen repeatedly brought up here.


thats it.....oh yes and from what I can gather from the Assistant Chief Pilot of Jet Blue - the IFEs on that flight were turned off.


Leif

I remember a statement from JetBlue after the incident that said the satellite feeds to the IFE had been turned off once they had identified that there was an issue and they would have passengers watching the issue on their screens. However this would have left the movies and other "non-broadcast" elements of the IFE on so that people would have something to occupy them for the 3 hours they had to wait while burning off fuel.