Investor call and fleet speculation
01-23-2017, 05:52 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: Cub Cap
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
Massive thread drift ahead. In 1988, UAL was severely short on lift. There were no planes to be had on the market. New planes were years away, and not much available on the used market....until....
CargoLux sold to UAL 5 worn out 747-100's. No, these were not the 747-200's used JFK-NRT. Different planes all together--these 200's were brand new and spent their entire lives flying this one route. These 5 100's were originally American planes, the original batch of 747's. You could tell these planes because they still had only 3 windows on the upper deck. United had to basically rebuild these planes, and the corrosion was so bad, had to pretty much reskin a large part of the fuselage. When they were done, they were pretty nice, but never quite got over the years of abuse from their previous lives. They still had a lot of bugs in them.
So, UAL flew each of them domestically for a couple of weeks to wring them out. This wasn't all that long after PAC day when UAL bought the Pan Am Pacific division. The very first flight across the Pacific on this one sister, had a NH flight engineer, and a new UAL 747 captain, no Pan Am experience. (It turns out there was a full DH crew downstairs, all ex Pan AM that could have helped. This incident is why, when you DH, you are strongly encouraged to introduce yourself to the working crew to let then know you are there in back.)
I never plumbed the rope start so a lot of this is from the incident. The Pan Am guys were not used to the planes being fixed when a writeup was made. They just made things work. For years, an unofficial work around to fuel distribution and balancing fuel in the 747 was to use the fuel dump system and manifold to crossfeed or transfer fuel around in the 747 fuel tanks. Only weeks prior, TK had prohibited this work around. Remember NH FE?? They had just past Shemya, on the chain, when the first engine flamed out.
This was the first flight since rebuild that there had been fuel in the aux tanks. SFO-NRT. It turns out that the FE was having trouble with the fuel burning properly from the aux tanks, and it was burning out of the mains. He couldn't figure it out, and didn't say anything till the first engine flamed out. 747, 3 engines? No problem. They did get it relit, for a while.
The fuel panel on all Boeings is not a simple thing. The crossfeed valves in particular. When you move a crossfeed switch, the light comes on, then goes off. You think that the valve has moved into the commanded position when the light goes out. Not true. What happens is that power has been applied to the valve to move. It doesn't actually mean that the valve did anything. Right at the top of decent, 3 of 4 engines flame out due to fuel starvation. They ended up landing and having exactly the predicted landing fuel, but all in #2 main. They landed with only #2 running, with 22,000 lbs of fuel all behind #2. The NH FE did not know about moving fuel through the dump system. If they had known the Pan Am crew was on board, they might have been able to help and avoid the entire situation.
During the investigation, no one could figure out what had happened, until a flight test crew flew the plane back from NRT to SFO. The same thing happened. Screwy fuel burn problems. This time, the flight test crew moved the fuel and had little trouble dealing with the problem. Still, it took a while to figure out the problem. It turns out, two of the cross feed valves failed when cold soaked. They worked fine when on the ground, but failed in flight. The problem was verified when they packed the 2 valves in dry ice to cold soak them, and they failed to move when commanded. Remember the crossfeed light system? The light comes on when power is applied, and goes off when power is removed. It does not mean the valve has moved.
Thus the 747 single engine landing in NRT and why these 5 100's were called the lemon sisters, and why some planes earn their name. Needless to say, UAL tried pretty hard to keep this quiet, not many people outside of having been involved directly with the incident even know about it.
CargoLux sold to UAL 5 worn out 747-100's. No, these were not the 747-200's used JFK-NRT. Different planes all together--these 200's were brand new and spent their entire lives flying this one route. These 5 100's were originally American planes, the original batch of 747's. You could tell these planes because they still had only 3 windows on the upper deck. United had to basically rebuild these planes, and the corrosion was so bad, had to pretty much reskin a large part of the fuselage. When they were done, they were pretty nice, but never quite got over the years of abuse from their previous lives. They still had a lot of bugs in them.
So, UAL flew each of them domestically for a couple of weeks to wring them out. This wasn't all that long after PAC day when UAL bought the Pan Am Pacific division. The very first flight across the Pacific on this one sister, had a NH flight engineer, and a new UAL 747 captain, no Pan Am experience. (It turns out there was a full DH crew downstairs, all ex Pan AM that could have helped. This incident is why, when you DH, you are strongly encouraged to introduce yourself to the working crew to let then know you are there in back.)
I never plumbed the rope start so a lot of this is from the incident. The Pan Am guys were not used to the planes being fixed when a writeup was made. They just made things work. For years, an unofficial work around to fuel distribution and balancing fuel in the 747 was to use the fuel dump system and manifold to crossfeed or transfer fuel around in the 747 fuel tanks. Only weeks prior, TK had prohibited this work around. Remember NH FE?? They had just past Shemya, on the chain, when the first engine flamed out.
This was the first flight since rebuild that there had been fuel in the aux tanks. SFO-NRT. It turns out that the FE was having trouble with the fuel burning properly from the aux tanks, and it was burning out of the mains. He couldn't figure it out, and didn't say anything till the first engine flamed out. 747, 3 engines? No problem. They did get it relit, for a while.
The fuel panel on all Boeings is not a simple thing. The crossfeed valves in particular. When you move a crossfeed switch, the light comes on, then goes off. You think that the valve has moved into the commanded position when the light goes out. Not true. What happens is that power has been applied to the valve to move. It doesn't actually mean that the valve did anything. Right at the top of decent, 3 of 4 engines flame out due to fuel starvation. They ended up landing and having exactly the predicted landing fuel, but all in #2 main. They landed with only #2 running, with 22,000 lbs of fuel all behind #2. The NH FE did not know about moving fuel through the dump system. If they had known the Pan Am crew was on board, they might have been able to help and avoid the entire situation.
During the investigation, no one could figure out what had happened, until a flight test crew flew the plane back from NRT to SFO. The same thing happened. Screwy fuel burn problems. This time, the flight test crew moved the fuel and had little trouble dealing with the problem. Still, it took a while to figure out the problem. It turns out, two of the cross feed valves failed when cold soaked. They worked fine when on the ground, but failed in flight. The problem was verified when they packed the 2 valves in dry ice to cold soak them, and they failed to move when commanded. Remember the crossfeed light system? The light comes on when power is applied, and goes off when power is removed. It does not mean the valve has moved.
Thus the 747 single engine landing in NRT and why these 5 100's were called the lemon sisters, and why some planes earn their name. Needless to say, UAL tried pretty hard to keep this quiet, not many people outside of having been involved directly with the incident even know about it.
The Captain was extremely professional, a very good no nonsense pilot, the last guy you could imagine that this would happen too. The management told him he could go back to F/O, but he would never fly Captain again. He was very embarrassed, eventually cooler heads prevailed and he retired in the left seat. A really good guy... he flew west last year.
01-23-2017, 06:03 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Thanks for the perspective and the rest of the story. I wonder where the "cooler heads" came from? I'm pretty sure that I know. I just tossed that out there for the Marvin's and the dunderheads.
01-23-2017, 06:46 PM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
Refers to the 747-100, 747-200, and 747-300 that all had a flight engineer, commonly called "rope start" 747's.
01-23-2017, 07:04 PM
#94
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
Refers to the 747-100, 747-200, and 747-300 that all had a flight engineer, commonly called "rope start" 747's.
Maybe...I thought it was Retired Old Pilot Engineer.
If you have a swanky modern lawnmower, it starts with a key.....but the old, primitive ones were "rope-starts." You youngin's may not know that you once had to manually wind a rope around a pulley...
Anyway, some Capts would retire at 60, and become super-senior engineers. When I was a new-hire, there were 12 (I think) FEs over 70(!!!). The oldest two were over 80!!!!
Since these guys were "Retired Old Pilot Engineers," (ROPEs), and the FE started the engines on the 727, 747, and I assume DC-8 and DC-10, it doubly reinforced the reference of "ROPE-start 747."
01-23-2017, 07:26 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
Pretty sure in normal ops there was no ability to transfer fuel, only burn it down- just like the 757, 767, and 777. The dump manifold was a backdoor way to actually move fuel and it worked just fine.
There is no way to do it that I know of on any other current Boeing, except crossfeed.
01-23-2017, 07:32 PM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
This, plus
As explained to me:
If you have a swanky modern lawnmower, it starts with a key.....but the old, primitive ones were "rope-starts." You youngin's may not know that you once had to manually wind a rope around a pulley...
Anyway, some Capts would retire at 60, and become super-senior engineers. When I was a new-hire, there were 12 (I think) FEs over 70(!!!). The oldest two were over 80!!!!
Since these guys were "Retired Old Pilot Engineers," (ROPEs), and the FE started the engines on the 727, 747, and I assume DC-8 and DC-10, it doubly reinforced the reference of "ROPE-start 747."
As explained to me:
If you have a swanky modern lawnmower, it starts with a key.....but the old, primitive ones were "rope-starts." You youngin's may not know that you once had to manually wind a rope around a pulley...
Anyway, some Capts would retire at 60, and become super-senior engineers. When I was a new-hire, there were 12 (I think) FEs over 70(!!!). The oldest two were over 80!!!!
Since these guys were "Retired Old Pilot Engineers," (ROPEs), and the FE started the engines on the 727, 747, and I assume DC-8 and DC-10, it doubly reinforced the reference of "ROPE-start 747."
The lawnmower story is why the 100's were called rope starts. The engineers over 60 were more commonly called "Herpies." Once you got one, it wouldn't go away. Would that be like friends of Fred?
01-23-2017, 08:13 PM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
I flew the "666" Devils 767-300 many a time (ETOPS and all) and while we joked about it I never had one problem or major write-up that I can remember.
I think some things become "urban myths." Or is that some people?
Here's the NTSB Synopsis of the NRT 747 flame out:
UNITED FLT 97 EXPERIENCED INDICATIONS OF UNEVEN FUEL FLOW FROM MAIN TANKS 2 AND 3 AT FL360 BEGINNING ABOUT 4- HOURS AFTER DEPARTURE ON AN 11- HOUR TRANSPACIFIC FLIGHT. THE FUEL SYSTEM HAD BEEN SET UP FOR ALL ENGINE FEED FROM THE NOS 2 AND 3 TANKS. ALTHOUGH IT WAS LATER ESTABLISHED THAT THE NUMBER 2 CROSSFEED VALVE FAILED IN THE CLOSED POSITION, THE S/O INFORMED THE CAPT THAT THE INTRANSIT LIGHT HAD ILLUMINATED WHEN THE VALVE SELECTOR WAS MOVED TO THE CLOSED POSITION - INDICATING NORMAL CROSSFEED VALVE OPERATION. FUEL SYSTEM PROBLEM WAS MISDIAGNOSED AS A PROBLEM OF FAULTY FUEL GAGE INDICATIONS. FUEL MONITORING INDICATED INSUFFICIENT FUEL FLOW FROM NO 2 TANK WHEN CROSSFEEDING. ENGS 1, 3, AND 4 FLAMED OUT WHEN FUEL WAS EXPENDED FROM ALL TANKS EXCEPT NO 2. EMERGENCY DESCENT WAS MADE TO DESTINATION TOKYO-NARITA AIRPORT. CREW REPORTED THEY USED FLAPS-20, BUT DFDR SHOWED FLAPS-1 WAS USED FOR LANDING. 3 TIRES BLEW ON LANDING. ALL 3 FLIGHTCREW QUALIFIED IN THE B-747 IN THE 13-MONTHS BEFORE THE INCIDENT.
The Captain was 57 years old and just out of training with a total of 194 hours in 747 left seat. According to NTSB report.
And flaps 1 landing is leading edge flaps only, no trailing if I remember correctly. They probably selected flaps-20 but on one engine...
I think some things become "urban myths." Or is that some people?
Here's the NTSB Synopsis of the NRT 747 flame out:
UNITED FLT 97 EXPERIENCED INDICATIONS OF UNEVEN FUEL FLOW FROM MAIN TANKS 2 AND 3 AT FL360 BEGINNING ABOUT 4- HOURS AFTER DEPARTURE ON AN 11- HOUR TRANSPACIFIC FLIGHT. THE FUEL SYSTEM HAD BEEN SET UP FOR ALL ENGINE FEED FROM THE NOS 2 AND 3 TANKS. ALTHOUGH IT WAS LATER ESTABLISHED THAT THE NUMBER 2 CROSSFEED VALVE FAILED IN THE CLOSED POSITION, THE S/O INFORMED THE CAPT THAT THE INTRANSIT LIGHT HAD ILLUMINATED WHEN THE VALVE SELECTOR WAS MOVED TO THE CLOSED POSITION - INDICATING NORMAL CROSSFEED VALVE OPERATION. FUEL SYSTEM PROBLEM WAS MISDIAGNOSED AS A PROBLEM OF FAULTY FUEL GAGE INDICATIONS. FUEL MONITORING INDICATED INSUFFICIENT FUEL FLOW FROM NO 2 TANK WHEN CROSSFEEDING. ENGS 1, 3, AND 4 FLAMED OUT WHEN FUEL WAS EXPENDED FROM ALL TANKS EXCEPT NO 2. EMERGENCY DESCENT WAS MADE TO DESTINATION TOKYO-NARITA AIRPORT. CREW REPORTED THEY USED FLAPS-20, BUT DFDR SHOWED FLAPS-1 WAS USED FOR LANDING. 3 TIRES BLEW ON LANDING. ALL 3 FLIGHTCREW QUALIFIED IN THE B-747 IN THE 13-MONTHS BEFORE THE INCIDENT.
The Captain was 57 years old and just out of training with a total of 194 hours in 747 left seat. According to NTSB report.
And flaps 1 landing is leading edge flaps only, no trailing if I remember correctly. They probably selected flaps-20 but on one engine...
Last edited by Regularguy; 01-23-2017 at 08:37 PM.
01-23-2017, 08:44 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
This, plus
As explained to me:
If you have a swanky modern lawnmower, it starts with a key.....but the old, primitive ones were "rope-starts." You youngin's may not know that you once had to manually wind a rope around a pulley...
Anyway, some Capts would retire at 60, and become super-senior engineers. When I was a new-hire, there were 12 (I think) FEs over 70(!!!). The oldest two were over 80!!!!
Since these guys were "Retired Old Pilot Engineers," (ROPEs), and the FE started the engines on the 727, 747, and I assume DC-8 and DC-10, it doubly reinforced the reference of "ROPE-start 747."
As explained to me:
If you have a swanky modern lawnmower, it starts with a key.....but the old, primitive ones were "rope-starts." You youngin's may not know that you once had to manually wind a rope around a pulley...
Anyway, some Capts would retire at 60, and become super-senior engineers. When I was a new-hire, there were 12 (I think) FEs over 70(!!!). The oldest two were over 80!!!!
Since these guys were "Retired Old Pilot Engineers," (ROPEs), and the FE started the engines on the 727, 747, and I assume DC-8 and DC-10, it doubly reinforced the reference of "ROPE-start 747."
01-24-2017, 06:34 AM
#99
Not at work
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 737 ca
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
There is no way to do it that I know of on any other current Boeing, except crossfeed.
Last edited by blockplus; 01-24-2017 at 06:49 AM.
01-24-2017, 07:37 AM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by blockplus
The 787 uses the fueling/defuel/jettison manifold to balance fuel. It is the primary transfer system and has a crossfeed as a backup. If you look at the fuel panel there is a balance button.
I know the C-141 and C-5, and most of the tankers can transfer fuel.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
