HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Crash causes and faults [Long] (was Re: El Al 747...)
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:40:48 GMT

In <1992Oct9.191642.23055@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:

>Does the idea of a service bulletin put out by boeing and the FAA 
>about engine mount pins failing have any impact?
>15 such pins have been found recently to have cracks in them that could
>lead to thier failure.  

As far as I know, being an airplane owner myself, service bulletins
come only from the manufacturer.  The FAA does not issue them, unless the
situation is different for airlines.  I doubt it.

Service bulletins are routinely ignored by the private GA fleet, as compliance
is not required as it is with an AD (Airworthiness Directive).  The airlines
are probably a bit more strict and I imagine that they do comply
with the SBs.

Assuming 3 pins per engine, we get 12 per aircraft, or about 12,000 pins
in a worldwide fleet of 747s.  Cracks in 0.12% of the pins over 20+ years
is not that much, although if I were Boeing I would want to address the issue.

>BTW boeing has changed the Pin design 3 times already.
>That implies they havent quite got it right in my opinion.  
>A pin is a (relatively) simple thing, so you cant really say the design got
>changed out of superior tech. or simple improvements.

Yes, but other factors may have caused the change.  The factors could range
from improved milling machinery to engine changes, etc.  Even changes in the
certificated gross weights of the airplanes, runway requirements, etc. could
all trigger changes in the design of the pins.

>Go ahead, I dont fly 747 anyway.  Usually DC-9, or 737 from 
>Logan - Ohare

The 747 has a better safety record than either the -9 or 737

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Re: Most evil looking....
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:09:05 GMT

In article <34010005@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com> miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com (Mark Miller) writes:
>My vote goes to the B-52 on a low-level bomb run. I have observed many
>of them on takeoff and landing, and seen films of bomb runs from the
>ground. The sight and the sound from those eight engines (not to
>mention the smoke) are menacing. They look like huge birds of prey!
>
>
Ever seen Dr. Strangelove?? Some excelent (albiet black and white, this film
was made in 1964) B-52 footage.


Simon

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: Crash causes and faults [Long] (was Re: El Al 747...)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:54:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.021818.14447@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
Derek H Cedillo <cid@athena.mit.edu> writes:
>>Pilot error is a real tough call.  Like I mentioned earlier, 747's are
>>very heavy, especially when filled with cargo.  Without much altitude
>>its hard to recover, actually it is a 1/billion chance.
>>As far as a pilot error causing engines to fail and fall off,
>>this is obviously ludicrous. But I dont think this is what you meant right?
>
>Why not?  If there was a sustained compressor stall/surge and associated
>heavy vibration, and the captain continued to use the engine *despite* 
>that vibration, it could cause an uncontained engine failure, no?  Similarly,
>if overtemp or oil indications for that engine were ignored, it could also
>cause catastrophic failure.
>
>Besides, I have the utmost faith in the capability of the authorities to 
>implicate the pilots of any crash. :-(
>
This is an excellent point Robert.  Sorry I didn't look at it that way.
I am curious if there are any systems control experts that
could help to determine the amount of control a pilot has on a problematic
engine?  I would imagine there is a certain amount of automatic
control to serious problems.  But how much is pilot shutdown, and
how much is automatic?  This was a good point Robert, thanks
for keeping us on our toes!

>---
>Robert Dorsett
>rdd@cactus.org
>...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
>
>                     Vote for sci.aeronautics.airliners!
> Send email to airliner-vote-admin@rascal.ics.utexas.edu for a copy of the CFV

Derek H Cedillo

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: casper@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik)
Subject: Re: El Al 747 Crash in Amsterdam
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:37:16 GMT

eric@cs.ruu.nl (Eric Nieuwland) writes:

>Could be, could be not. I know the place where it happened quite well and
>the
>only things it could have hit would be another tall building and no such
>hit
>was reported. The metro station which some say was also hit is much lower
>than
>the top of the destroyed building. Furthermore, eyewitnesses claim the
>explosion
>was *before* they saw the plane at "a strange angle".

Never trust an eyewitness. Some eyewitness have reported the 'plane
hitting another highrise first and hitting the metro tracks.
And the 'plane did not hit the top of the building but it seems
to have hit the ground before it hit the building. (The tracks are
about tree floors up)

>> It probably was not a terrorist attack. They almost never occur (I do not know
>> of any) at cargo-flights. Why would you want to bring down a plane stuffed with
>> flowers ?
>True! But who would want to attack a schoolbus with children in it?

I think you miss the point. ``If you don't meet our demands, we're going
to destroy these flowers'' isn't going to make much of an impression on
anyone. But if you substitute children for flowers, people may listen.

A terrorist attack is very unlikely in this case, especially since
atleast one similar incident has happened with exactly the same
type of aircraft (a 747-200F) of approx. the same age (13 years).

Casper
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: eric@cs.ruu.nl (Eric Nieuwland)
Subject: Re: El Al 747 Crash in Amsterdam
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:55:00 GMT
Organization: SERC/RUU
Followup-To: sci.aeronautics

According to my information, the plane lost its hydraulics just before
it went down. I don't know whether this is speculative or a known fact.

My question then is: What can make a 747-200F loose its hydraulics and
is there no mechanical back-up?

A 747 pilot said they know when an engine is on fire and when it has
reduces thrust, but they don't know if the engine is at all there!
It seems to me that this knowledge would greatly influence decisions
to be made in emergency situations. It wouldn't be too hard to detect
loss of an engine either. So why isn't it done?

--eric
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Correction (Re: El Al 747 Crash in Amsterdam)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:09:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.141226.9160@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.102757.8462@fwi.uva.nl> casper@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik) writes:
>> There is mechanical backup for the lowering of the
>>landing gear and, presumably, flaps. 
>
>There is no mechanical backup for the landing gear or flaps.  I seem to recall 
>electric actuation for the slats, but I'm probably confusing it with the 727.  

I was wrong.  Ann Berner pointed out that there is, indeed, mechanical backup 
for the landing gear and flaps.  

For the gear, it's comprised of electric motors to open the gear doors,
unlock the gear, and let them gravity-drop.  There is a mechanical crank
for the nose gear.

For the flaps, the mechanical backup is comprised of electric motors, for both 
the leading and trailing edge flaps.

Sorry for the misunderstanding; it's been a long time since I last took
a close look at the 747 (1980, as a matter of fact).





---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd

 Vote on sci.aeronautics.airliners!   See the CFV in news.announce.newgroups,
 or send email to airliner-vote-admin@rascal.ics.utexas.edu for a copy of it.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: vkochend@nyx.cs.du.edu (vance kochenderfer)
Subject: Re: Inflatable aircraft
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:11:26 GMT

     I seem to recall seeing an RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicle) with
inflatable wings in one of the Jane's books.  I'm not sure which one.

Vance Kochenderfer
Virginia Tech                     |        "You are growing tiresome."
vkochend@nyx.cs.du.edu            |                       -Dieter
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Crash causes and faults [Long] (was Re: El Al 747...)
Date: 10 Oct 1992 13:24:44 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <14942@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.191642.23055@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>>As far as sabatoge goes, this is unlikely.  A cargo plane is not
>>the likely target of a terrorist attack.  Who are they going to affect?
>  Ok experts, a question: Is it possible to see the difference between a
>cargo 747 and a passenger 747 if it passes over you at, say, 1000ft?
>  If so, is it easy to see the difference?

The only major external differences I've noticed are the windows. The cargo
747 generally doesn't have them. Only a few scattered about, the rest are
covered with aluminum. So from the ground they will look the same, unless of
course the airline has a paint scheme for their cargo aircraft that is 
distinctive.

However, I don't believe a missile attack was implied. More likely a bomb
would have been place onboard before hand as in most terrorist attacks.

Personally I'm not making any judgement calls until all the facts are in.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
From: watson@wsinsp01.win.tue.nl (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Crash causes and faults [Long] (was Re: El Al 747...)
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:01:53 GMT
Reply-To: watson@win.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

I have a couple of comments on the on-going discussions surrounding the
El-Al crash.
1. Why is it that most non-pilots won't believe us multi-drivers that losing
engines (power that is) is not the end of the world as far as control goes.
Sure it is true that the 747 doesn't have the rudder authority to yaw left
effectively with 1 & 2 at high power settings, but this doesn't mean that
you're always flying right. For example, you can see quite well from the 
radar plots that after the second turn over the city, the jet successfully
intercepted the 27 LOCalizer (or visual extended centreline if in VMC);
the loss of control seemed to crop up shortly after this intercept. It
could be that engine 1 was at less than TOGA before the intercept, and that
the added thrust to maintain some sort of glide-slope would have been too
much to maintain the centreline caused the yaw right.
(In this comment, I'm not implying that losing two engines still allows you
to keep your altitude, but I am implying that you still have control of
your attitude -- asymmetric thrust/rudder permitting)

2. A catastrophic failure in one of the two engines could easily destroy
the other same-side engine. For example, the failure of an engine (either
1 or 2 I think) on a South African Airlines 747 (either 1984/85) over the
North Atlantic; the engine threw some blades and trashed the other -- just
like that. Evidently the vibration wasn't enough to rip them off, and (as
I recall) they were shut down promptly -- but according to the crew (first
hand) the vibration was severe during the spin-down. They managed to make
it to Lisbon for an emergency landing. I personally don't find a two-on-one
side failure that outrageous, given the number of 747's in service -- even
if something similar happened a few months ago (I'd call that coincidence).

Comments?

Bruce.
 
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Bruce Watson                     || favourite oxymoron: "-- rather, it simply 
watson@win.tue.nl                ||   complicates our implementation." from  
watson@stack.urc.tue.nl          || C++ Primer, 2nd ed. (p.501) by S. Lippman 
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Aurora FAQ???
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:52:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.120253.1@vmsclst1.sc.csupomona.edu> mgeorgy@vmsclst1.sc.csupomona.edu writes:
>Can anyone tell me if either this group or Sci.Military has composed a FAQ on
>the Aurora. Last I heard one was being put together but nothing since.  
>
>Please reply by posting directly to the Net, as my mail system isn't working
>properly...

A while ago, I *suggested* that someone organize a FAQ-list.  Two people
responded in email, saying they had the desire, but not the time.

Something like this has to be run by someone with both the interest and the
time.  I have neither, so the project basically died right there.

I still think it'd be a good idea to consolidate information.  Even a "see
this" list, comprisd of references to AvLeak articles, would be good.




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Xref: sparky sci.aeronautics:2323 rec.aviation.military:125 rec.aviation.misc:139
From: q1hl@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Nameless CS Student)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: 747
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:36:11 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick

In article <PswasB4w165w@netlink.cts.com> bigbro@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan) writes:
>Does anyone know the approximate size specifacations of the 747?

From Janes World Aircraft Recognition Handbook, 4th Ed.

(747-100/200/300)
Span:    59.64m
Length:  70.51m

(747-400)
Span:    64.92m
Length:  70.66m

Height and weight not specified in the recognition book.
-- 
Chris
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Sources, and the applicability of the scientific method (747 crash)
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:53:28 GMT
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

A good question flew by here.

How fast CAN a 747 dump fuel? While we're at it, let's argue the
units - lbs/s, gallons/min, kg/hr, etc :-}

Which commercial craft have NO dump provisions? I seem to
remember there are some such out there.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: El Al 747 Crash in Amsterdam
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:20:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.035126.14109@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>In article <167@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>>In <1992Oct7.005552.5844@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo):
>>> I think boeing may have made a big boo-boo somewhere.
>>
>>I don't think so.  The 747 is an extremely safe aircraft.  With all of the
>>miles and flights that 747's complete each day, there would be many more
>>crashes if there were any "big boo-boos" in the aircraft.
>
>To me, 2 aircaft that lose 2 engines on the same wing shortly
>after take-off within 10 months of eachother is a boo-boo.
>Especially when both ended so fatally.  

To me, uninformed conclusions before they even have a death count is a 
"boo-boo."  I call your boo-boo "coincidence," until the forensic evidence
suggests otherwise.  

I can think of at least five common-cause-of-failure possibilities for a 
double engine loss: sabotage, low oil, bird strike, poor preventive 
maintenance, and pilot mismanagement of a bad situation.  One is an "act of 
God," one's an act of malice, two are maintenance issues, and one's a 
training/selection issue.    

The odds of a *structural* failure as the cause of a double engine loss (for 
the *possible* reasons cited) is astronomical.

This type of armchair quarterbacking is always interesting: one always
learns something new.  But before we translate this *speculation*--a 
thought-exercise--into *fact,* and adjust our flying habits on it, let's 
have at least a preliminary crash report (from the actual investigators--
not the TV models) in our hands, eh?  :-)

Me?  I'll fly on the 747, noooooo hesitation.  


---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Inflatable aircraft
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:54:26 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <k53-fQC@engin.umich.edu> Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.041848.22747@nuscc.nus.sg> Perry Morrison, swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg writes:
>>
>>When lying on my inflatable bed, I've often wondered if it would be
>>possible to create an inflatable wing.......

Back in the 50's, an inflatable aircraft was produced under
contract to the US army (by Schwiezer?). It was a two-seat,
high-winger, with an overhead mounted engine. The neat thing was
that the entire aircraft could be deflated and transported in a
large suitcase. I don't believe that there were any internal
supports other than nylon(?) baffling (much like your inflatable
mattress). The wings, tail group, and engine mount were wire braced, 
however. I have a video-tape of this thing in flight somewhere,
and I'm  sure I have some book someplace that describes the
thing in more detail. E-mail me at wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com if
you'd like me to track down some references.

------------
Bill Collum
Consultant, Distributed Computer Systems
Control Technologies Inc.
150 East Whitestone Blvd, Suite 256
Cedar Park, Texas 78613

have construction details.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs)
Subject: Re: Inflatable aircraft
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 22:54:54 GMT

>When lying on my inflatable bed, I've often wondered if it would be
>possible to create an inflatable wing (with appropriate stiffeners for
>support). I had in mind something like a square shaped wing with a
>proper airfoil and decent wingspan. It would also require a short rear
>structure to control pitch and some ailerons.

You know, I think the paraglider and skydiving communities would have
something to say about this.  Seriously, all ram air canopies are
"inflatable aircraft".  They use the ram pressure of the forward motion to
inflate themselves, and are actually airfoils.  In the case of paragliders,
they work well enough that you can soar them.  In the skydiving case, the
advent of zero porosity fabrics and better airfoils has driven a drop in
size by about a factor of two from the designs of a decade ago.  The best
of the modern crop are comparable in performance to rigid wing designs of
the same area.

-- 
| Daniel Briggs  (dbriggs@nrao.edu)                      |        USPA B-14993
| New Mexico Tech / National Radio Astronomy Observatory |            DoD #387
| P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM 87801   (505) 835-7391        |
Support the League for Programming Freedom  (info from league@prep.ai.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Crash causes and faults [Long] (was Re: El Al 747...)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:19:10 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <14942@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>>As far as sabatoge goes, this is unlikely.  A cargo plane is not
>>the likely target of a terrorist attack.  Who are they going to affect?
>
>  Ok experts, a question: Is it possible to see the difference between a
>cargo 747 and a passenger 747 if it passes over you at, say, 1000ft?

Not readily.  The cargo models don't have many windows, but it would take
fairly sharp eyes to spot that.  They also differ from *modern* passenger
models in that they don't have the rearward extension of the upper-deck
hump, but there are enough older passenger models (with the old short hump)
still around that this isn't a reliable sign.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,rec.travel.air
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Cabin airflow revisited
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:30:58 GMT

A few weeks ago, a discussion on cabin pressure emerged on rec.travel.air.
In it, the points were made that the available cabin pressure and air quality 
were a function of the number of available air conditioning packs.  Some 
figures were also tossed around for *circulation* data, as well.

Just ran into this in the June 1992 issue of Interavia, in an article
titled "Smokescreen over cabin air quality."  The article's basic point 
is that while we're banning smoking, we're *also* introducing aircraft
that have greatly diminished air conditioning capabilities, by *design*,
in the greater interests of saving fuel...  One proponent of this theory,
cited, was from RJ Reynolds, who rates this as a greater health-threat
than tobacco, so take that what it's worth. :-)

Here's an adapted version of their chart (cubic meter values for cabin volume
changed to cubic feet):

             Cabin           Air            Air             Fresh air
             volume (ft^3)   exchange rate  recirculated    rate
                             per hour       %               (ft^3/min per pax)
Narrowbody
 727-100     5333            22.9           0               18.9
 727-200     5827            26.4           0               16.8
 737-100     4238            26.1           0               16.8
 737-200     4626            23.9           0               15.1 
 737-300     5262            14.2           42               9.6
 757         6498            15.6           48               9.0
 DC-9-30     4379            27.3           0               18.1
 DC-9-50     5227            22.9           0               16.4
 MD-80       6110            19.7           22              14.1

Widebody
 747         27,899          14.7           26              17.1
 767         11,265          10.4           52               9.1
 DC-10-10    14,797          22.8           0               19.4
 DC-10-40    14,797          14.9           35              12.9
 L1011-1/100 18,964          17.8           0               18.6
 L1011-500   17,446          19.3           0               20.6
 A310        11,795           9.7           53              10.1


The neat thing here is that if one looks at the newer airplanes--757, 767,
737-300, A310--the numbers go WAY down...  Does anyone know what the precise 
correlation is between, say, fresh air rate and fuel burn is?  Any references?


Has anyone determined a correlation between exchange rate and "passenger
satisfaction?"  Could this be one reason the 727, for instance, continues to 
be a popular passenger airplane? :-)




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd

 Vote on sci.aeronautics.airliners!   See the CFV in news.announce.newgroups,
 or send email to airliner-vote-admin@rascal.ics.utexas.edu for a copy of it.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics