HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr)
Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 7:47:27 MST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301081447.AA22409@walnut.mmm.ucar.edu>
Date: 08 Jan 93 12:59:12 PST

In article <airliners.1993.34@ohare.Chicago.COM> Kevin Driscoll writes:

> Current opinions vary about how much EMI an avionics system is protected
> against, but 200 v/m is a typical number.  One would not expect the
> above devices to produce such levels.  RF getting into the radio nav aids
> is another matter, but that wouldn't cause a transient change in aircraft
> attitude anyway.  Unless there is more to this story, this looks like a
> case of the ignorant pulling a demon out of their hat.

Wouldn't there be a change in attitude if the autopilot was engaged,
which it obviously was, and if the navigation equipment was disturbed by RF?
For example, if you are flying a heading of 090 to hold the 270 degree
radial to the station, and someone in back turns on their super-powered
Sony Nav-Mess 1000 CD player, the nav equipment, may sense that the
aircraft is now on the 280 degree radial, and the autopilot would command
a turn to the right to correct the situation.  I am not saying this is
what happened, but it is possible.  I don't remember how much bank was
introduced, but I would think, however, that the amount of bank the
autopilot is allowed would be limited to 30 degrees or so.
 _____________________________           _____
| Keith Barr                  \           \ K \__      _____                  
| barr@ncar.ucar.edu           \___________\   \/_______\___\_____________    
| Comm/AS&MEL/Inst/IGI         /           < /_/   .....................  `-.
|_____________________________/             `-----------,----,--------------'
When you think how well basic appliances work, it's   _/____/               
hard to believe anyone ever gets on an airplane.--Calvin          

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: brunnstein@rz.informatik.uni-hamburg.dbp.de
Subject:  A320 3-seaters
X-Submission-Date:  Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:26:17 +0100
X-Submission-Message-Id:  <3293*/S=brunnstein/OU=rz/OU=informatik/PRMD=uni-hamburg/ADMD=dbp/C=de/@MHS>
Date: 06 Jan 93 04:26:41 PST

Robert Dorsett recently requested information about the existence of some 
3-seat A-310/-320's. I have contacted DASA (German Airbus) experts in North 
Germany. Here are details of the A-320 "3-seaters" (there have also been A-310 
"3-seaters" but due to some misunderstanding, I have yet to get details).

To clarify a possible misunderstanding, I interpret Robert's question as 
concerned with the *seats occupied by personnell* actively involved in flight
management. Indeed, *every A-320 has at least 3 seats*, 2 for the pilot and a 
spare one (not used for active flight management personnel). But there a 
SEVERAL A-320 which are equipped with 4 sets, 3 of which are used by 2 pilots 
and one for a flight engineer (called OMN). Among others, the converted 
prototype (A-320 #2) and the machines A-320 #5,7,9 and 14 (and several others) 
in service for Air France have 4 seats and are controlled by 2 pilots and 1 OMM;
this is due to requests of the French pilot's association. Such planes are 
equipped with special EFCS technology and have undergone a special registration 
procedure; but all of them can be converted to the normal 2-pilot version by 
replacing the EFCS (I hope to learn yet more about the difference). 

Besides Air France, Air India also flies such OMN-equipped A-320, which have
also a different landing gear system. France's Air Inter and Lufthansa had
also planned, due to similar requests of pilot unions, to fly such models but
made last-minute arrangements with them and now fly 2-pilot versions.

Information on A-310 will follow. I moreover try to learn more on the differen-
ce between OMN-equipped and "normal" EFCS.

Finally, one remark about my attempts to get Airbus experts involved in email
discussion. First, French and German Airbus experts seem to use digital communi-
cation "less" (if at all!) than there competitors in other parts of the world.
Second, the "enterprise culture" is even less open than in other parts of this
economic slot; when trying to get information about IT-related concepts and
implementation, I often learned that "we are sure that our systems are safe but
we can give you no details". Knowledge about basic EFCS concepts and problems
seems restricted to French experts, and they seem to regard their knowledge as
national wealth not sharable with non-French parts of there own enterprise!.
Third, I understand that actually some organisational "re-arrangememts" are
going on, which have also implications for availability of some experts. (But
honestly, this may only be a "wrong assessment of a bloody outsider" -:) 

Nevertheless, I'll continue to make one expert available for international
scientific information exchange via email.

Klaus Brunnstein (January 6,1992)



Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: Helen Trillian Rose <hrose@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Boeing link with Daimler-Benz on "jumbo jumbo?"
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:12:42 -0500
 <airliners.1993.33@ohare.Chicago.COM>
X-Submission-Message-Id: <199301081612.AA06390@rocza.eff.org>
Date: 08 Jan 93 12:59:15 PST

Kevin> == Kevin Driscoll <driscoll@src.honeywell.com> 

 Kevin> In article <airliners.1993.17@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
>Boeing said today (Tuesday) that it has held discussions with Daimler-
>Benz regarding development of a "jumbo jumbo" airliner that could
>carry as many as 800 passengers on long-range routes.  Interesting to
>say the least since Daimler-Benz's aerospace subsidiary is Deutsche
>Airbus!

 Kevin> The BBC World Service reported today that the head of Airbus
 Kevin> says they have been talking to Boeing, appearenly independently
 Kevin> from their Deutsche subsidiary.  The BBC speculated that this
 Kevin> might be a Boeing ploy "to drive a wedge between the partners".

Actually, I heard (I think it was either on CNN-Headline News or read it
on Clarinet) that Boeing had talked to both British Aerospace and
Daimler-Benz/Deutsche Airbus, but *hadn't* talked to Aerospatiale (sp?,
in any case, the French). Which countries have partnerships in Airbus?
In any case, Germany, France, and England are the main partners (I
believe). It's very interesting *which* two Boeing talked to. Perhaps it
says something to where Boeing thinks the "blame" for the non-kosher
business practices comes from.

--Helen

--
Helen Trillian Rose             	<hrose@eff.org, hrose@kei.com>
Electronic Frontier Foundation   	email eff@eff.org for EFF Info
Kapor Enterprises, Inc.                 Flames to: 
Systems and Networks Administration	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: Stephen L Nicoud <stephen@boeing.com>
Subject: Tire burn-out during landings
X-Submission-Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 16:36:44 PST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301040036.AA00365@moclips.boeing.com>
Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:10 PST

   From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
   Date: 29 Dec 92 12:39:16 PST

   I recall an old issue of AWST that described the certification flight test
   program for the first 747. The flight test budget included a 3 million $
   line item for "Wheels, tires, and brakes".

   At least one of these tests was known to be destructive. The worst-case
   demonstration of a takeoff abort would seem to thoroughly cook all of the 
   tires and brakes. I don't know if any of the wheels were savable.

I don't know about FAA certification, but I have some flight test
footage of a fully-loaded E-4 landing (or was it takeoff abort?)
during Air Force testing (prior to delivery, I believe) where the
tires and gear caught fire.  Some of the tires exploded.  As I recall
(it's been a few years since I viewed the tape) at one point it
appears that some shrapnel actually punches through the wing.

I seem to recall that the crew made hasty exits by jumping from the
main cabin door.

The rescue trucks are also shown successfully (apparently) putting out
the fires, although it took them at least a minute to reach the plane.

Stephen
--
Stephen L Nicoud  <stephen@Boeing.Com>  bcstec!bcsaic!stephen
Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology
Bellevue, Washington  USA
"I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks."

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Subject: Re: Martinair DC10 crash?
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:15:04 GMT
Organization: Chicago Software Works
X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan6.111504.10951@ohare.Chicago.COM>
Date: 06 Jan 93 04:26:40 PST

In article <airliners.1992.187@royko.Chicago.COM> van_heel@rz-berlin.mpg.de writes:
>Martinair DC10 crash around 9.30 am in Portugal.
>
>According to a news broadcast which I heard at
>10 o'clock this morning, a Martinair DC10 charter plane
>had just crash-landed on a Portuguese airport with 322 passenger
>aboard after being struck by lightning.  The plane exploded
>immediately after the unsuccesful crash-landing.   

Given the concerns when this newsgroup was formed over a flurry of
crash-related speculation I'm surprised that there's been nothing
further here regarding this crash.  Maybe it's the holidays, or
just not that interesting a crash.  For those wondering, here's a
bit of info, primarily from UPI (via ClariNet).

The aircraft, a 15 year old DC-10-30(CF) due to be sold to the Dutch
Air Force, broke in two after the left wing hit the ground just as
or shortly after the main gear touched down at Faro Airport.  The
forward section remained largely intact but the aft section was
destroyed by an explosion and fireball.

Strong, gusting winds appear to be the most probable cause.  Light-
ning was not mentioned as a factor in any of the reports I read.

Of 340 people on board (327 PAX and 13 crew) 54 were killed and over
260 were injured, 31 seriously.  Identification of victims has been
hampered by Martinair's incomplete passenger list.

-- 
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@ditka.chicago.com		
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg)
Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices
X-Submission-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 13:13:49 GMT
Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest
X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan05.131349.7076@omen.UUCP>
Date: 06 Jan 93 01:06:28 PST

In article <airliners.1993.2@ohare.Chicago.COM> rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>It'd be interesting to learn how MDC came to its very specific conclusion 
>about the bank incident... :-)
>
>
>--
>Robert Dorsett
>Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
>UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd
>
>
>----------
>
>>From AIRLINE PILOT, December 1992, p. 40:
>
>
>"McDonnell Douglas Corporation has warned all operators of DC-8, DC-9,
>DC-10, MD-11, and MD-80 aircraft about reported interference to
>avionics from passenger carry-on electronic equipment.  The
>manufacturer further recommends that operators of its aircraft
>prohibit onboard use of 'any passenger-operated carry-on electronic
>radio transmitting device which intentionally radiates' electromagnetic
>energy.
>
>"The reason for the warning, said McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company,
>is that a DC-10 recently '...abruptly banked to the right twice during
>climb to a cruising altitude.  The suspected cause of these incidents
>was...  a passenger operating a small audio [compact disc] player.'

Round up the usual suspects.  Isn't this a bit early?  April 1
is more like it.  Obviously the passenger was playing a Killer CD.

If the McDonnell jets are so sensitive to EMI that a CD player
(!!!) can stand one on its ear, better not fly one within
sight of FM or TV towers, satellite dishes, radar beams, CB
antennas, taxicabs, let alone any source of lightning discharge.
Confiscate all cellular phones in checked or carry-on luggage.
If a CD Walkman can crash a DC-10, think of what a megawatt UHF
TV station would do.

And don't forget, digital watches use RF energy.
-- 
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf 
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406
From: dme5907@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (David M. Eklund)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Re: Aha!  The three-man 767 rears its ugly head...
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:37:17 GMT
Organization: Boeing
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:22:04 GMT
X-Submission-Message-Id: <C0G5su.C1A@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>

In article <airliners.1993.13@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
>In article <airliners.1993.12@ohare.Chicago.COM> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>>Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby
>
>It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire,
>er, fly-by-light system quite soon now.  Were there any signs of
>activity?

Due to extensive modification from the YF-22 program on N757A the decision
was made to take a 757 off the production line for a flying testbed
of the 777's flight control laws.  It successfully completed its tests
a couple of months ago and will now be modified again and sold to its
respective customer.
   
-- 
David Eklund                      |  In no way, shape, form, size, structure,
System(no s) Engineer             |  magnitude, configuration, or conformation
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group  |  is my opinion that of Boeing's
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll)
Subject: Re:  First Flights on airliners
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 01:04:59 CST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301060704.AA11070@couqusmungus.src.honeywell.co>
Date: 06 Jan 93 01:06:30 PST

> I caught the tail-end of an episode of "First Flights," on the Arts & 
> Entertainment Network, which dealt with advanced-technology airliners,
> Wednesday night.  There were segments on the MD-12, the Fokker 100, and
> the MD-80.  I only saw about the last 8 minutes, so assume the A320 or A310, 
> and Boeing products, were featured in the first 20.  

   I had set my VCR to record this while I was away over the Holidays.
This episode was titled "Mass Transit in the Sky".  It started by saying
that just after commercial jet transport's infancy (707), the Europeans
went for speed with the SST and the US went for size (principally the
747); and then the Europeans had to play catch up after making this mistake.
It then discussed DC10, L1011, and A300 as wide bodies for airlines that
couldn't use the 747 size.  It then had a short discussion of the
A320's envelope protection vs pilot control controversy.  Immediately
after that was MD11, which is the point at which you apparently tuned in.
You didn't miss much.  I also recorded the next week's episode, "By the
Seat of Their Pants", about the pioneering (turn of the century) planes.


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: Robert Dorsett <rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: Boeing link with Daimler-Benz on "jumbo jumbo?"
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:11:21 CST
Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
X-Submission-Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.726556281.rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu>
Date: 09 Jan 93 02:25:00 PST

In <airliners.1993.37@ohare.Chicago.COM>  Helen Trillian Rose <hrose@eff.org> wrote:

>Actually, I heard (I think it was either on CNN-Headline News or read it
>on Clarinet) that Boeing had talked to both British Aerospace and
>Daimler-Benz/Deutsche Airbus, but *hadn't* talked to Aerospatiale (sp?,
>in any case, the French). 

Another slant on this issue is they see how expensive this airplane can
to be, how tenuous the market can be, and are extending feelers on
a cooperative venture.  Airbus can afford to risk $7 billion on an air-
plane that won't turn a profit: Boeing can't.  A cooperative measure would
be in both companies' interests.


>Which countries have partnerships in Airbus?
>In any case, Germany, France, and England are the main partners (I
>believe). 

The countries, their shares in the Consortium, and their major national 
players, are as follows:

France: 37.9% share.  Aerospatiale, state company.

Germany: 37.9% share.  Deutsche Airbus, owned by Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm.

England: 20% share.  British Aerospace, 48.43% owned by the British government.

Spain: 4.2%.  CASA, state company.

Netherlands: associate partner, Fokker.

Belgium: associate partner, Belairbus.

All this is just the tip of the corporate iceberg, though: Airbus as a 
corporate entity is more a holding company than anything else: work is done
by the principal contractors, who in turn have a massive web of sub-
contractors.

Approval of projects, as well as funding, is secured at the governmental
level, not the corporate level.




--
Robert Dorsett
Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping)
Subject: Re: Aha!  The three-man 767 rears its ugly head...
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 14:46:44 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
X-Submission-Message-ID: <8kd=xb_@engin.umich.edu>
Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:54 PST

>
>AvLeak didn't say, but it didn't sound like there were any plans to
>prototype it; the first two airframes would presumably be used as
>"deliverable prototypes" much as the 747-400 test planes were.  The planes
>will be pretty much stock, sent to Wichita for strengthening of the rear
>fuselage and other modifications, then returned to Seattle for the
>electronics.  Of course, this all assumes that the procurement passes the
>Japanese Diet.
>
>(I don't remember which of the N books about Boeing I read this in, but
>during testing of the 767's wing strength, they never found out how strong
>it really was; at 117% (or so, don't remember the exact number) of rated
>strength, the fuselage gave way.  I'll try to find where I read it.)
>

  I think it may have been in _Legend & Legacy: The Story of Boeing and
Its People_.  It the most recent Boeing book I've read, and I remember
that story fairly well.  Even if its not, its still an excellent book to
read.  Take it along on your next flight! :)

  Just found the reference:  Pg. 391, _L&L_

  	  The 767 emerged from a tremendous amount of wind tunnel
	work; it was what [Dean] Thornton called a "clean paper"
	airplane--everything started from scratch.  One of the de-
	sign's chief virtues was the potential growth built into
	the airplane; the wing, huge for the plane's overall size,
	was structurally so powerful that the static destruction
	test failed to break it.  The wing went far beyond the 100
	percent of design load limit, and it was not the wing that
	failed but the aft fuselage near the area of a rear cargo
	door.
	  "We extrapolated from that test all the data we needed to
	assure us the airplane had tremendous growth potential,"
	Ben Cosgrove remembered.  "We never did find out how much
	it would take to break the wing--the static test ended when
	the rear fuselage broke, and we decided to use the wing for
	other test purposes."

  
-- 
@ "Our lives are better left to chance;  ****      PLEASE!  E-Mail to:       @
@   I could have missed the pain, but    ****  bob.topping@um.cc.umich.edu   @
@   I'd have had to miss the dance."     ****  phy_astrclub@emunix.emich.edu @
@  Garth Brooks, The Dance.   @>-,'--    ****     :::RETURN OUR HURON!:::    @ 

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Re: Tire burn-out during landings
X-Submission-Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 20:31:04 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
X-Submission-Message-Id: <bd3avt4@Unify.Com>
Date: 06 Jan 93 01:06:30 PST

In article <airliners.1993.3@ohare.Chicago.COM>, raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:
> 
> 	Tires have to be replaced more often than I personally might have
> 	expected.  My dad says that the Western Airlines record for most
> 	landings between changing sets of tires was 283, and was held by
> 	a DC-10.  It would be interesting to know some statistics for
> 	mean replacement frequency and cost, which have doubtless changed
> 	some since he worked for Western.  With tire pressures of 190 psi
> 	and loading on the order of tens of thousands of pounds per tire,
> 	not counting forces at touchdown, it figures that they won't be cheap.

	Something I found out since was that Western didn't own its
	tires, it leased them.  I still haven't heard an actual cost,
	but billing was on a per-landing basis.

	Another footnote suggesting that tires are fairly expensive
	is that they were recapped as many as 10 times before being
	retired.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: weiss@ada.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss)
Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices
X-Submission-Date: 11 Jan 93 03:50:23 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9058@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 93 01:38:41 PST


In article <airliners.1993.34@ohare.Chicago.COM> driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes:
>>"These devices, says the company, 'include, but are not limited to,'
>>citizen-band radios, cellular telephones, transmitters that remotely
>>control devices such as toys, and portable compact disc players.
>
>Current opinions vary about how much EMI an avionics system is protected
>against, but 200 v/m is a typical number.  One would not expect the
>above devices to produce such levels.

Well, I just got back from Boston on a B757 (the first narrow-body aircraft I
have flown in that had an in-flight movie!), and this obnoxious ~9-year-old
kid was running his remote-control car down the aisles until a flight attendant
told him to put it away.  I wonder if it caused any interference in the cabin.
Certainly there was no attitude adjustment (and the kid sure could have used
one...), so it doesn't appear that it affects the controls.
-- 
\ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
-  Michael  weiss@seas.ucla.edu   |  School of Engineering & Applied Science  -
-   Weiss   izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu  |   University of California, Los Angeles   -
/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ 

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners