Actually they often have to refuel the SR-71 right after take-off because the leaks are so bad. The difference though is the SR-71 is designed that way to compensate as the A/C stretches in flight approx 1 meter.
-=0=LIR=0=-
Hard Landing In YTH......
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
LostinRotation
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location: Cloud #8
-
SoundAdvice
- Rank 0
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 1:02 pm
- Location: Frostbite + Bugs = Bush
-
J.P.WISER
- Rank 3
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:53 am
- Location: BACK OF THE HANGAR OR THE BAR
Yeah that's just as I was trying to say, the same thing as a metro right!!!! They just have to take off real fast after refueling cause filling them in the air would be very impractical.LostinRotation wrote:Actually they often have to refuel the SR-71 right after take-off because the leaks are so bad. The difference though is the SR-71 is designed that way to compensate as the A/C stretches in flight approx 1 meter.
-=0=LIR=0=-
HAVIN A DRINK FOR YOU!!
J.P. WISER
J.P. WISER
-
salsa dancer
- Rank 1
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:41 pm
Its a write-off. Its hiding in the hangar being stripped for parts. Although I don't see whats going to be useful off of it, engine frame was bent ripples in the wings theres even ripples in the tube itself. Must have been one loud bang and a welcome to Thompson thank you for flying Perimeter.
Yes, it did happen, I'm not defending that or anything else. Let's define write off though. That would imply that an insurance company has assessed the airframe and paid the operator for its value. This never happened. It, like many other metros is high time. If it was newer it would be getting fixed right now. The aircraft MAY OR MAY NOT be ferried to Winnipeg, regardless, it is in maintenance. As it stands now, the aircraft IS worth more in parts than it is to fix. Noob, are you kidding me, "what's useful"? A Metro airframe with no engines is worth around 100k, maybe less. I ask you, aside from the airframe, what isn't useable? It has a full EGPWS kit, an IFR GPS, and TCAS. The avionics installed are probably worth almost $200,000 alone. The engines and props are worth around half a million as well. Do the math, would you fix it? That said, yes, it is "hiding"in the hangar. Does the company you work for do maintenance on the ramp, next to the hangar?
giligan [/quote]
giligan [/quote]
-
Northern Flyer
- Rank 6
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:40 pm
-
GoodFromFarButFarFromGood
- Rank 0
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:35 pm
- Location: Never Never Land
I was just wondering how former Skyward employees are sitting back and not jumping all over this topic. There are 28 pages on the thread about Skyward losing their OC including countless posts by Perimeter pilots saying Skyward got what they deserved and then Perimeter goes and smashes one on, almost getting a clap for effort from the wings and there's only 2 pages worth. Where are all the Skyward pilots to throw some salt in the wounds. Or maybe they are just more professional than that.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
-
centerstored
- Rank 4
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:16 pm
GoodFromFarButFarFromGood,
Give it up "one post wonder"...too shy to post under your real username? Or just thought you'd join to slag a well operated company because you can't work there! See, nobody's biting because most people who know this industry understand the difference between a hard landing in a well kept metro, and a greaser in a clapped out, snag ridden bandit! There is much more to talk about in case 2...apparently even TC agreed with that reasoning.
Give it up "one post wonder"...too shy to post under your real username? Or just thought you'd join to slag a well operated company because you can't work there! See, nobody's biting because most people who know this industry understand the difference between a hard landing in a well kept metro, and a greaser in a clapped out, snag ridden bandit! There is much more to talk about in case 2...apparently even TC agreed with that reasoning.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
O.K. I guess I'll finally ask the question that bothers me about these discussions.
On one hand we have a company shut down and seems there were not any accidents.
Then we have an accident where it would appear that a crew of two managed to do signifigant damage to an airplane that was well maintained.
Why can't the rest of aviation find out what caused these things to happen?
Or has aviation been brought to a level where information has become an issue that is best kept in the dark.
How are pilots and mechanics supposed to learn from an industry that works on rumors with no facts allowed to enter the discussions?
Cat
On one hand we have a company shut down and seems there were not any accidents.
Then we have an accident where it would appear that a crew of two managed to do signifigant damage to an airplane that was well maintained.
Why can't the rest of aviation find out what caused these things to happen?
Or has aviation been brought to a level where information has become an issue that is best kept in the dark.
How are pilots and mechanics supposed to learn from an industry that works on rumors with no facts allowed to enter the discussions?
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Three things Pilots Have to tell their maintenance; 1)powerplant exceedences, 2) airframe stress e.g.turbulence, hard landings, over weight landings, overspeed. 3) lightning stikes/static discharges.
Ignore or lie about these three, and fate will bite your butt one day, and if not yours, some other poor driver.
Ignore or lie about these three, and fate will bite your butt one day, and if not yours, some other poor driver.
If you don't know,ASK!
"Do or do not..there is no try"
"Do or do not..there is no try"
-
centerstored
- Rank 4
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:16 pm
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I must have missunderstood, I thought the airplane was damaged to the point that it may be a write off.
No I never had a hard landing that damaged an aircraft and I do not appreciate you insinuating that I have.
If the airplane was damaged that bad, all I was suggesting was it may be informative to know what caused this event ( accident ) .
Society sure is getting dummed down when the word accident can no longer be used without someone sanitizing the description to make it look better.
So what happened, did they as someone claimed land downwind and lose control of their airplane resulting in a hard landing that wrote off the machine rather than an accident that wrote off the machine?
Or are the employees of some companies less accountable than other companies for some strange reason?
So straighten the facts for me Centerstored.
Cat
No I never had a hard landing that damaged an aircraft and I do not appreciate you insinuating that I have.
If the airplane was damaged that bad, all I was suggesting was it may be informative to know what caused this event ( accident ) .
Society sure is getting dummed down when the word accident can no longer be used without someone sanitizing the description to make it look better.
So what happened, did they as someone claimed land downwind and lose control of their airplane resulting in a hard landing that wrote off the machine rather than an accident that wrote off the machine?
Or are the employees of some companies less accountable than other companies for some strange reason?
So straighten the facts for me Centerstored.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Speaking of facts I think there is a saying that fits here...something about stones and glass houses...
Heres the quote from the A.I.P. it is the definition of accident, draw you own conclusion but I'm siding with "accident".
“reportable aviation accident” means an accident resulting directly from the operation of
an aircraft, where
(a) a person sustains a serious injury or is killed as a result of
(i) being on board the aircraft,
(ii) coming into contact with any part of the aircraft or its contents, or
(iii) being directly exposed to the jet blast or rotor downwash of the aircraft;
(b) the aircraft sustains damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength,
performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that requires major repair
or replacement of any affected component part; or
(c) the aircraft is missing or inaccessible.
“reportable aviation incident” means an incident resulting directly from the operation of
an airplane having a maximum certificated takeoff weight greater than 5 700 kg, or from
the operation of a rotorcraft having a maximum certificated takeoff weight greater than
2 250 kg, where
(a) an engine fails or is shut down as a precautionary measure;
(b) a transmission gearbox malfunction occurs;
(c) smoke or fire occurs;
(d) difficulties in controlling the aircraft are encountered owing to any aircraft system
malfunction, weather phenomena, wake turbulence, uncontrolled vibrations or
operations outside the flight envelope;
(e) the aircraft fails to remain within the intended landing or takeoff area, lands with
all or part of the landing gear retracted or drags a wing tip, an engine pod or any
other part of the aircraft;
(f) any crew member whose duties are directly related to the safe operation of the
aircraft is unable to perform the crew member’s duties as a result of a physical
incapacitation that poses a threat to the safety of any person, property or the
environment;
(g) depressurization occurs that necessitates an emergency descent;
APRIL 29, 1993
GEN 3
Heres the quote from the A.I.P. it is the definition of accident, draw you own conclusion but I'm siding with "accident".
“reportable aviation accident” means an accident resulting directly from the operation of
an aircraft, where
(a) a person sustains a serious injury or is killed as a result of
(i) being on board the aircraft,
(ii) coming into contact with any part of the aircraft or its contents, or
(iii) being directly exposed to the jet blast or rotor downwash of the aircraft;
(b) the aircraft sustains damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength,
performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that requires major repair
or replacement of any affected component part; or
(c) the aircraft is missing or inaccessible.
“reportable aviation incident” means an incident resulting directly from the operation of
an airplane having a maximum certificated takeoff weight greater than 5 700 kg, or from
the operation of a rotorcraft having a maximum certificated takeoff weight greater than
2 250 kg, where
(a) an engine fails or is shut down as a precautionary measure;
(b) a transmission gearbox malfunction occurs;
(c) smoke or fire occurs;
(d) difficulties in controlling the aircraft are encountered owing to any aircraft system
malfunction, weather phenomena, wake turbulence, uncontrolled vibrations or
operations outside the flight envelope;
(e) the aircraft fails to remain within the intended landing or takeoff area, lands with
all or part of the landing gear retracted or drags a wing tip, an engine pod or any
other part of the aircraft;
(f) any crew member whose duties are directly related to the safe operation of the
aircraft is unable to perform the crew member’s duties as a result of a physical
incapacitation that poses a threat to the safety of any person, property or the
environment;
(g) depressurization occurs that necessitates an emergency descent;
APRIL 29, 1993
GEN 3
-
Northern Flyer
- Rank 6
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:40 pm
-
The Hammer
- Rank 6
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:46 am
You mean like the audit they had a couple months ago?B100 wrote:I think its about time Tc looked in some of the sh.t that the greenmachine has been upto. How many accidents can one company have and nobody take a look??
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.
