It is a video game on NES, the plane was notoriously hard to land there.

Here is a video some guy made about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofM11...el_video_title

I have finally finished reading this thread, great job W0X0F for keeping it alive with your focus and dedication!

Just wanted to comment re "flying cars". I do agree that the idea is absurd *today*, given overall low level of maturity for both technology and us, humans (there are some exceptions though, but they are rare). However, I'd like to point out that when first automobile was invented, it was toy for "some rich folks" only, and it took time before Ford realized everyone could be taught to drive, and it took some more time to come up with somewhat good system for ground traffic control, and technology evolved making most accidents "walkable away from". Another example is computers, when the first one invented in 1940's, no one foresaw (and some frowned upon) PC use in every house, and nowdays in every cell phone as well. There are many other examples where original inventor didn't predict who is going to be using that invention...

I do agree it is unlikely most of humans can be SAFE & GOOD pilots, but, IMHO, flying car IS matter of time (unless we, as humans, manage to extinct ourselves prior to that). Just like in many sci-fi movies, there will be sufficient level of traffic and device automation to make it such way that it does not require pilot's skills to control one. First company to come up with "how" and actually start building and implementing it, stand to make a fortune (first to the market principle of economy).

We, as ever-growing human race, will run out of 2-d space of roads, and will need to transition to 3-d space of air. It is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, perhaps my grandkids will see it...Of course alternatives to fossil fuel would need to be invented prior to that, as air travel, by law of physics, will require more energy.

Anyway, to keep this thread on-the-topic, my family just came back from vacation in Jamaica, and we had a 752 on the way back. Pilots had to use spoilers to slow it down upon descend to JFK Is there a maximum speed above which spoilers can not be used - for risk of being torn off by air stream? Or is it the same as flaps - it depends on angle of deployment?

I know the idea of you writing a book was already brought up, but here is my idea on how you can do it - book should cover just one cycle - pick Seattle to London to cover both above ground and cross-ocean crossings, and walk the reader through each step and procedure you go through from the moment you wake up the day of trip, till the moment of reaching hotel in London (better example is JFK to Tokyo, as you can relate to your actual commute from home in DC). Along the lines, tell a few stories of emergencies (I am sure there are many items in checklists and procedures which were results of incidents and accidents), come up with a situation in cabin, etc. As for title : "What goes up, must come down", "Passion of flight", "16 hours of my life", etc...

they found the wreckage of AF 447 apparently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12953432

easily top 10 2p2 thread of all time. W0F0x have you heard about the recent news story of that southwest plane having cracks on the fuselage.

from local news coverage...i heard one expert say that the whole plane could have potentially opened up like a zipper, another said that the crack would have stopped at the next divot (does this make sense?), and had no chance of cracking any further? what's your expert opinion sir?

This sounds a lot like Aloha Air Flight 243 and is most likely related to fatigue due to the number of pressurization cycles for that plane. I'm not sure what a divot is (except in golf); is it possible the news guy meant "rivet"? In any case, I'm not a structural engineer and I don't really have an expert opinion on the matter. I do know that repeated cycles on a plane have a fatiguing effect on the airframe, but so does everyone in the industry and it's something that is taken into account by inspection methods and overhaul criteria, and the 737 is closely watched ever since that Aloha Air incident. Maybe they'll have to revise the methods or the criteria based on this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12945453
I'm sure W0X0F will agree that when it comes to reporting aviation incidents, the facts are usually badly researched and the story sensationalized.

Reading about the Southwest incident last Friday, a report mentioned the pilots considered going back to Phoenix, but decided against it because of the extent of the damage. It would seem that once the hole developed, all the stress on the airframe would be relieved and once at a low altitude, you could return to Phoenix where there is better emergency equipment, maintenance, etc...considering it was the same distance, but maybe I'm missing something here on protocol. I'm not trying to second guess the pilots, but wanted to get your thoughts. Thx! On a separate note, on a flight last night, I noticed a passenger in front of me was stretched across all 3 seats sleeping for most of the flight, but when we were ready to land, the FA never made him return to a normal upright position. I assume, they just missed this? I have to give him credit, he stayed asleep until we arrived at the gate and they turned the lights on.

On other question. Have your ever "dead-headed" the 767? If so, I assume the "feel" of the aircraft is much different? Do you have to have a certain amount of weight in the cargo hold or could you fly it totally empty?

Not sure about 767s but the RNZAF certainly like to throw their 757s around when they're empty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYZOByowrlU

There have been many cases of pilots overflying a suitable landing site and then regretting it later. There might be some instances where we can consider what's most convenient for the company or the passengers when diverting (e.g. in the case of a weather diversion), but in potentially life-threatening, time-critical situations it's prudent to get the plane on the ground as soon as possible.

SwissAir Flight 111 found this out the hard way with their on-board electrical fire. They elected to divert to Boston, 300 miles away, rather than the closer Halifax. That decision was fatal.

Alaska Air Flight 261 might have been saved had the decision to divert to LAX been made immediately upon noting the control problems.

I'm not trying to overdo the Monday-morning quarterbacking here. The decision to divert is not made lightly, and we know it's going to cost the company a lot of money when we do it. Thus, in cases where the situation doesn't seem immediately life-threatening, it's a natural tendency to want to find a better, more convenient, solution. Probably because of this human tendency (and the mission oriented nature of pilots), several of the emergencies listed in our QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) specifically spell it out: LAND AT NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT.

They may have seen that he had a seatbelt fastened around himself, but I'm kind of surprised they didn't have him sit up for landing. Though now that I think of it, I'm not sure this is a requirement. It's required to have a seat belt on, tray table stowed, and seat in the upright position, but I've never seen the orientation of the passenger spelled out anywhere.

Nowdays it's the fastest plane they've got!

I never have flown an empty 757 or 767, but I did once fly an empty MD-88 from BDL to DCA. With just the two pilots on board, the plane's VSI (Vertical Speed Indicator) was pegged after takeoff. We were climbing at better than 6,000 feet per minute initially.

The plane didn't feel much different in cruise. It's only in the climb that you really notice the greatly increased power to weight ratio. No ballast weight is needed. The center of gravity of an empty plane is within the normal operating envelope for the plane.

Cool video: SFO to CDG in two minutes w/ the northern lights!

How does this happen? Who is most likely at fault? What kind of trouble are they in? Air France Jet clips smaller plane

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/11/new...iref=allsearch

Here is a link to this that works.

This was freakin' sick. Pretty sure I saw my house

Thanks for the link. Didn't realize the other is for mobile applications.

.

You can delete posts you know.

CNN took it down

This one works for now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13052948

This is a YouTube link to the taxiway accident.

Saying one plane "clipped" the other is an understatement to say the least.

Wow... I would not have liked to have been in that RJ. It's a testament to the strength of the tail that it transmitted the massive force to the body, spinning the plane, instead of just breaking off.

So that's why we are supposed to keep out seat belts on until we pull up to the terminal.

Wow.

It could happen for a lot of reasons. Here's just a few I can think of...

(1) The ground controller forgot that an RJ was holding near the taxiway when he cleared the 380 to taxi on that route.

(2) The 380 was told to hold short of the taxiway that the RJ was on and he missed the hold short point.

(3) The RJ had been cleared into the ramp by ground control and the ground controller assumed he was clear, but the RJ held in position due to ramp congestion (i.e. the ramp controller did not clear him to taxi in to the gate).

(4) The 380 or the RJ was on a taxiway other than the one they were cleared to be on.

As you can see, the cause of this accident could be due to the actions or inaction of either crew and/or the ground controller. But as with car accidents, the ultimate blame falls to the driver of the moving vehicle. The Air France pilot seemed to be taxiing pretty fast from the video I saw and though he may have been cleared to taxi on that route, he still has the final responsibility for not running into things. It's pretty hard to put any blame on the pilots in the stationary plane.

I don't see the RJ crew getting in any trouble. The controller, if he/she is found to be partially responsible, might face some time off and retraining. As for the 380 Captain, that's up to Air France. I suppose he could lose his job.

I'm not sure who foots the bill for this. There is insurance, of course, but I don't know if the insurance companies can then seek payment from Air France. There will probably be a bunch of law suits as a result of this.

Based on listening to the ATC audio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=set8Wx3Dotk

It appears the collision happened at the intersection of A & M. I have a picture attached which shows the likely positions of the two aircraft when the collision occurred. Obviously the AF pilot should have noticed the traffic. But I wonder why the RJ was stopped where it was. Anyone who has flown Delta Connection thru JFK realizes what a perpetual traffic jam the ramp is, but it still seems like an off place to be. Any thoughts on this W0X0F?