Search
Notices

737-900 Wow!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-04-2014, 06:40 AM
  #171  
Gets Weekends Off
 
oldmako's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Default

This place is a broken record. And its gettin' brokener.
oldmako is offline  
Old 04-04-2014, 06:46 AM
  #172  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: C560XL/XLS/XLS+
Posts: 1,278
Default

Flight 163 took off at 18:08 GMT to complete its final leg to Jeddah. Almost seven minutes into the flight, the crew received warnings of smoke in the plane's aft cargo compartment, C3. The next four minutes were spent by the crew trying to confirm the warnings, and by the flight engineer going back into the cabin to confirm the presence of smoke in the cabin. The captain decided to return to the airport. The thrust lever for the number 2 engine (center engine) later became stuck as the fire burned through the operating cable, and the engine was shut down on final approach.

The captain declared an emergency and returned to Riyadh International Airport and landed safely. After touchdown, contrary to the captain's declaration of an emergency landing, the airplane continued to a taxiway at the end of the runway and exited the runway, stopping on the taxiway 2 minutes 40 seconds after touchdown. The airport fire rescue equipment were stationed at the landing section of the runway expecting an emergency stop and evacuation. Why the captain did not immediately order an emergency evacuation of the aircraft is unknown. Because the fire rescue equipment was farther down the runway it took extra time to arrive at the aircraft, which had used the entire length of a 4,000-metre (13,000 ft) runway to slow and exit onto a taxiway. The aircraft stopped on the taxiway facing the opposite direction from landing. On arrival at the aircraft the rescue personnel did not immediately attempt to open any of the aircraft doors as the engines on the wings were still running. These two engines were shut down three minutes and 15 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop. There was no external fire visible at this time, but flames were observed through the windows at the rear of the aircraft. 23 minutes after engine shut down, the R2 door (second door on the right side) was opened by ground personnel. Three minutes later, the aircraft burst into flames, and was consumed by fire.[6] Autopsies were conducted on some of the non-Saudi nationals including the American flight engineer. All perished from smoke inhalation and not burns, which indicated that they had died long before the R2 door was opened.

One final transmission was received after the plane stopped, indicating that the emergency evacuation was about to begin. All of the victims were found in the forward half of the fuselage.

It took 23 minutes from the engine shutdown until the fuselage was accessed. Saudi reports stated that the crew could not get the plug-type doors to open in time.[7] It is assumed that most passengers and flight attendants were incapacitated during the landing roll or they would not have attempted to open a door on a moving aircraft. It is known that the aircraft remained pressurized during the landing roll as the cabin pressurization system was on standby and the aircraft was found with both pressurization doors almost completely closed. These pressurization doors should have opened completely on touchdown to depressurize the aircraft. The crew were found still in their flight station seats. The source of the fire in the C3 is unknown.[8]
dalad is offline  
Old 04-04-2014, 07:12 PM
  #173  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,158
Default

However it was widely speculated that the fire was started by a personal cook stove in coach. Some one wanted to cook his dinner at his seat.
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Old 04-04-2014, 09:11 PM
  #174  
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Default

James;
I agree with your assessment other than timing. Since the merger, we have burned through about 1.4 billion in cash per year, with debt levels staying the same. As of last Dec, we had less than 5B in the bank, compared to over 9 combined when we merged.

If I was going to take a SWAG, I would guess the company begs for concessions before 3.5 -1 kicks in about 6 months from now.

117 is also very expensive. It might happen before then.

Meanwhile, DAL and AMR are predicting record profits............B@$tards!!!!!
Probe is offline  
Old 04-05-2014, 04:21 AM
  #175  
Gets Weekends Off
 
oldmako's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Default

Yes. Mine was a total swag, so I opined within 24 months. I was thinking about an earlier date but it was too damn depressing to contemplate. I had no idea the cash was being burned at that rate. These guys are going to manage us right into the abyss. Costs can go up instantly, (as you mentioned, 117) but the big bucks stream of revenue needs to be nurtured over time. Lots of those bucks now flow not through ORD, but through ATL.
oldmako is offline  
Old 04-05-2014, 05:54 AM
  #176  
Pilot Response
 
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 479
Default

It's all about unity of effort. We can never use an APU this summer and fly everywhere at L/D max. It will all add up to a rounding error compared to what is being thrown in the toilet by these morons. Customers might want a decent, reliable product; but our geniuses won't consider that.
NFLUALNFL is offline  
Old 04-05-2014, 08:02 AM
  #177  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 332
Default

Problem with the 737 (all of them) is the lack of a heated horizontal stabilizer. That being said, a weight restricted 737-900ER (20/147=167 seats)flying into DEN under the above listed conditions normally ends up seating around 150 passengers. Guess what UAL also operates that seats 150 passengers (12/138)? The Airbus 320. I get it, the airbus can take a full load into high/icing penalty applied airports with a full load, but the 320 can't then take 167 people on to SEA while the 737 can. On bad days the 739 is basically a A-320 and on most days it serves (in the eyes of the finance guys) as a 757-200.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an airbus fan. I commute up front all the time and appreciate the thing. Just throwing out what the bean counters look at.
IAHB756 is offline  
Old 04-05-2014, 06:23 PM
  #178  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 647
Default

Originally Posted by IAHB756 View Post
Problem with the 737 (all of them) is the lack of a heated horizontal stabilizer. That being said, a weight restricted 737-900ER (20/147=167 seats)flying into DEN under the above listed conditions normally ends up seating around 150 passengers. Guess what UAL also operates that seats 150 passengers (12/138)? The Airbus 320. I get it, the airbus can take a full load into high/icing penalty applied airports with a full load, but the 320 can't then take 167 people on to SEA while the 737 can. On bad days the 739 is basically a A-320 and on most days it serves (in the eyes of the finance guys) as a 757-200.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an airbus fan. I commute up front all the time and appreciate the thing. Just throwing out what the bean counters look at.
Comparing a -900er to the 320 is apples and oranges. The 321 would be more apt.
C11DCA is offline  
Old 04-05-2014, 06:41 PM
  #179  
Gets Weekends Off
 
oldmako's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Default

"Forget it he's rolling"
oldmako is offline  
Old 04-06-2014, 03:14 AM
  #180  
Gets Weekends Off
 
fireman0174's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Retired 121 pilot
Posts: 1,032
Default

Not saying you're wrong, but the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that was a design problem was the hydraulic line placement that caused the UAL Sioux City mishap and even that might have been just a freak accident that could have happened to the L1011.

Doubtful it could have happened to a L1011. It had 4 hyd systems instead of 3 and one of them was fused to isolate the tail in case of a explosion in the number 2 engine. Hyd line routines were also split unlike the ten.
JAL lost a 747 in 1985 with a complete (4) hydraulic system loss.

Over 500 people perished.

Japan Airlines Flight 123 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
fireman0174 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
GoCats67
United
8
09-13-2013 12:07 PM
Lerxst
United
171
02-05-2013 06:58 AM
1Seat 1Engine
Major
11
06-15-2007 05:20 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices