Originally Posted by black cat
(Post 2923038)
For the high speed taxiway debate:
|
Originally Posted by pitchattitude
(Post 2923081)
Because the construction workers need jobs in Chicago.
Give them a few years and they will be tearing up and building again. A million years ago, when they started moving towards the parallel runway scheme, there was an informational pamphlet they put out. They said they’d looked at historical data and found an average of some low number of days (10-15 I think) that had sustained Xwinds that exceeded most A/C limitations. It sounded suspicious, but they claimed to have numbers. |
Originally Posted by But seriously
(Post 2923143)
Sarcasm aside...
A million years ago, when they started moving towards the parallel runway scheme, there was an informational pamphlet they put out. They said they’d looked at historical data and found an average of some low number of days (10-15 I think) that had sustained Xwinds that exceeded most A/C limitations. It sounded suspicious, but they claimed to have numbers. |
Originally Posted by pangolin
(Post 2923153)
Yes but ..... climate change.
|
Originally Posted by CousinEddie
(Post 2923058)
Does the 145 FM directly address reverse thrust usage when the airplane starts weathervaning on a contaminated / slippery runway?
|
Originally Posted by DownInPetaluma
(Post 2923212)
It’s jet flying in general.
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...rdia_USA,_2015 |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 2922904)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pangolin View Post Are you saying the left turn was unintentional? It wasn’t a high speed exit? And yet they collapsed their RIGHT gear in the dirt, but not the LEFT? When they departed the runway to the left? Bodies in motion and all that. |
Originally Posted by TikkleMe
(Post 2923274)
An attempt to turn left with the undesirable [yet expected] skid to the right.
Bodies in motion and all that. |
Originally Posted by But seriously
(Post 2923143)
Sarcasm aside...
A million years ago, when they started moving towards the parallel runway scheme, there was an informational pamphlet they put out. They said they’d looked at historical data and found an average of some low number of days (10-15 I think) that had sustained Xwinds that exceeded most A/C limitations. It sounded suspicious, but they claimed to have numbers. |
Originally Posted by CousinEddie
(Post 2923058)
Does the 145 FM directly address reverse thrust usage when the airplane starts weathervaning on a contaminated / slippery runway?
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:56 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands