^^^
I wonder if the guy sitting on the tip tank is because they filled the other tip tank which is causing the plane to list a bit. And his weight is to help counter balance while they continue fueling? Or does the right MLG strut need servicing?

Grumman Panther F9F-2.B

Best
Les

Starred in the movie "The Bridges at Toko-Ri"... great movie.

We took our daughter and family up to Charleston to fly back home yesterday. Stopped at Chick-fil-a near the airport for a sandwich and a Boeing Dream Lifter went just overhead coming in for a landing. They're used to shuttle parts into Charleston for assembly and I think there's only 4 of them. Two were parked at the airport.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1599996210.jpg

Correct, there are 4 of them, all owned by Boeing. They transport wing assemblies out of Japan and fuselage sections from Italy. Not everyone’s favorite airplane to fly due to the abbreviated upper deck, but a cool bucket list experience none the less.

I always look at this and marvel that it all holds together.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600009818.jpg

The one that was landing over top of us was coming from Italy. Son in law is in the business and knows all that stuff. He was just telling me about them the day before...Made his week to see it right over top of us.

Opening scene from M.A.S.H?

I took my Scouts for a hike up to where the opening was shot - maybe a decade ago - Malibu Creek State Park - absolutely beautiful country!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600116114.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600116114.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600116114.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600116114.jpg

The drive home didn't suck either. I mean hey, it was Malibu...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600116114.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600116114.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600116114.jpg

Read about this the other day. Unbelievable! From an article on Flightglobal

Spanish investigators have detailed an unusual incident in which a Boeing 737-500 crew struggled to control the aircraft after the autopilots failed, even though all the instruments needed to operate the flight remained fully functional. Operated by Lithuanian carrier Klasjet, the aircraft had departed Madrid Barajas for Kaunas on 5 April last year, with the captain’s autopilot inoperative – a situation permitted under minimum equipment list regulations – but the first officer’s autopilot also failed some 2min after take-off.

Spanish investigation authority CIAIAC stresses that the loss of the autopilots “did not prevent proceeding with the flight in instrument conditions”, because all the instruments required to conduct the service “were available to the crew at all times”. These included the attitude indicator, altimeter, rate-of-climb indicator, compass, bank indicator, engine instruments and other systems.

The inquiry also points out that the cockpit crew comprised instrument-rated pilots with “considerable” experience – a captain with over 4,300h on type, who also served as an instructor, while the first officer had about 2,000h. CIAIAC found that, despite this, the pilots experienced “problems” operating the aircraft. Although the crew declared an emergency, they did not specify the difficulty. Investigators detailed the meandering flightpath of the 737 after its autopilot failure

Flight-data recorder information shows variations in altitude between 4,000ft and 5,000ft, shortly before the aircraft – which had departed runway 14L – started turning north, and the pitch began to vary, reaching attitudes as high as 11° nose-down. The crew turned left to intercept Madrid’s runway 18L localiser but the inquiry says the turn was “too wide”. Unable to complete the intercept from the left, and with difficulties maintaining the correct altitude and position with respect to the localiser and glideslope, the crew carried out a go-around at about 3,300ft.

“The controller asked if they had problems with the speed, since he did not know the nature of their emergency, but the crew again requested vectors to land,” says the inquiry.

After the go-around the 737 headed east, then north. The inquiry states that the aircraft needed to increase altitude, as it was operating at 4,400ft and entering an area with a 6,700ft minimum. The controller observed that it was not doing so and twice ordered the crew to climb, but the pilots did not carry out this instruction. The aircraft turned left, towards the west, while changing altitude “noticeably”, says the inquiry. It began climbing from around 5,000ft to reach nearly 5,800ft as it continued to turn to the south-west in preparation for a second approach. It subsequently intercepted the localizer 11nm out at 4,300ft, but the pilots had not acquired visual contact with the runway at 8nm. “The crew was still having problems maintaining the ILS localizer and glideslope,” says the inquiry.

By the time the aircraft reached 2.5nm distance the controllers realized it had executed another go-around at around 2,600ft. Having conducted to failed attempts at landing, the aircraft diverted to Getafe air base. It climbed to just over 7,860ft – its highest point during the whole flight – and then began to descend on a heading for runway 23. While there were “minor variations” in speed and heading during this descent, the aircraft started to climb again while deviating to the right, according to the flight-data recording. It entered a right-hand circle south of the runway, at altitudes between 6,688ft and 6,440ft, then proceeded to turn north for a right-hand downwind leg, before landing on runway 23 about 35min after its departure from Madrid.

Cockpit-voice recordings of the incident were not captured. None of the 57 passengers and eight crew members was injured, and the aircraft (LY-KLJ) was undamaged. Although the cockpit-voice recorder was retrieved and its data downloaded, it had not captured audio information about the flight. The inquiry has not been able to determine why. But flight-data recorder information, it says, clearly shows the crew had “considerable problems maintaining the basic flight parameters”, including altitude, airspeed and heading, particularly during turns. “The problems maintaining the basic flight parameters due to the absence of automatic control systems indicates that neither the decision-making nor the co-operation between the crew were adequate,” the inquiry says. Poor weather conditions “complicated” the situation, it adds, with turbulence and cloud cover between 2,000-4,000ft around Madrid. “This prevented the crew from making a safe visual approach, and they probably did not have the runway in sight,” it states. The aircraft was diverted not because the weather was better at Getafe but because air traffic control believed a third landing attempt would pose a safety risk and generate delays.

Klasjet carried out its own probe into the event, noting several aspects in its findings which the Spanish investigators might have addressed with safety recommendations. Given these findings, the inquiry does not believe any further recommendations are necessary.

^^

Need to register to read the article but not surprising in this day when so many pilots are reliant on technology.

A couple of years ago the FAA put out a SAFO (Safety Alert for Operators) to 121 and 135 operators stressing the need for crews to do more hand flying in all phases of flight. Smart move, let's hope the operators heed it.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600747748.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600747748.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1600747748.jpg

Love that place!

They are till trying to fix something

Third AOA sensor sounds good to me

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/concerns-expressed-over-737-max-redundancy-manual-trim

Or get rid of MCAS entirely and add a type rating. The only reason for MCAS was to make the pilot feel like he was flying a regular 737.

Well, it's also meant to compensate some poor flight characteristics due to slapping engines under an air frame that really wasn't designed for such engines.

the New LEAP engines are just much bigger, they don't fit under the 737
To fix that, they attached em in a rather funky forward way tha,t with all the power they have, results in undesirable behavior..

Basically when they get to full power on a take off the plane will do something that no other , well designed plane will do... pull itself into a high AOA and stall.

I don't think such a thing is at all acceptable in a civilian passenger airplane, meant to fly in IFR, day or night, IMC conditions, storms, wind shear, over seas, mountains, huge densly populated metropoles.. with hundreds of passengers on board...

It's like having a school bus redesigned to have a new engine driving the front wheels, and because of that, we put the steering wheels in the back..
but be cause that's just tricky , we introduced some power steering aid that fixes the poor handling characteristics.

Then that power steering aid, as it turns out is flawed..

Do you really want to just pull the steering aid out.. and just fix it with training?? I don't think so