Not something you see too often.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:33 pm

Sad situation. Dude called mayday damn near as soon as he cleared the end of the runway. Whole bunch of things come to mind when seeing that video on what might have caused it.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:07 pm

Could have been.

Also with the left wing down it could have been fuel wasn't moved from the left wing tank to the right.

Way to damn early yet.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:28 pm

Here is a good video showing a Swiss A340 that had to shut down an engine during climb due to high oil temps.

If you care to watch it make sure annotations are on under settings and that way you will get the subtitles.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:05 pm

Papa Willie wrote:

Looks like a moving midget post come to life.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:18 pm

That was a pretty good video on the A 340.

I heard one news report said the problem on the ATR developed at 4 minutes after takeoff, but that is inconsistent with what other reports say,and minutes would put you well up their in altitude. Looks like the the starboard engine is at a lower RPM than the port, but it looks like it is basically falling out of the sky.

Not a good year for the zip airlines.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:56 pm

Papa Willie wrote:I thought that first video was an absolute fake when I first saw it.

Not sure why you assumed that I'm as stupid as you are. I knew it was real the first time I saw it.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:50 pm

When they dump many tons of fuel at that altitude, do they need to be concerned with their position, or does the stuff dilute enough at that altitude that it doesn't really matter?

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:09 pm

smackaholic wrote:When they dump many tons of fuel at that altitude, do they need to be concerned with their position, or does the stuff dilute enough at that altitude that it doesn't really matter?

They were at FL 270, and doing cruise speed probably 500 mph or so, I think they have some kind of dispersion nozzles that really atomizes it to pretty small size. Lefty probably has the scoop on that. Got to do it, that is 106,000 pounds you have to get off before you can land anywhere.

The fucking enviro whackos see this they will just shit.

Jerkovich · Post by **Jerkovich** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:07 am

Ya, I saw this at 2am on BBCA and couldn't believe my eyes. I had to watch it several time before it became clear that the left prop was not at full power. They were attempting to avoid the buildings in the path and over compensated. Rookies.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:10 am

Sudden Sam wrote:You think it mighta' been birds?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:54 am

smackaholic wrote:When they dump many tons of fuel at that altitude, do they need to be concerned with their position, or does the stuff dilute enough at that altitude that it doesn't really matter?

Position? Yes to a degree. Altitude? Not so much.

They want to make sure that they are dumping fuel in an area where other airplanes are not climbing or descending thru and traffic is able to avoid. They also want to dump over less inhabited areas if possible. In the US all fuel dumps must happen above 2000 feet. That said, if the crap is really hitting the fan then the pilot in command can basically do whatever he deems necessary to safely get the plane on the ground. For example, the FAA strictly prohibits flying over the George Washington bridge in NYC with only a couple hundred feet clearance. However, Capt Sully did just that after hitting birds.

That said any plane can land at their max takeoff weight, but it just might not be advised. The plane can often handle the landing and then maintenance must inspect the airplane before it can fly again. Some Boeing models like the 737 and 757 do not have fuel dumping capability.

Back to the video, notice the controller initially gave them Flight Level 290 (ie 29,000 feet) and they accepted that. Then the captain asks "are we able?" Meaning can they maintain the suggested airspeed at that altitude and dump? A quick look at the procedures manual told them that they needed to be at FL 270. ATC grants that almost immediately upon request from the crew. Then there is an edit and we miss part of the action. When we join them again they are descending to FL 230 and are maintaining 280 knots. They dump their fuel at FL 230 and 280 knots.

Derron wrote: I think they have some kind of dispersion nozzles that really atomizes it to pretty small size.

The systems are actually gravity fed to minimize the systems needed to make it work. The rate at which fuel leaves the planes in based on the head pressure and other items. The wake turbulence behind a "heavy" jet does much of the dilution of the fuel. This turbulence separates it into fine particles that mostly disperse before hitting the ground. Some have done studies on the ground below areas where fuel has been dumped above FL 100 and nothing has been detected.

Derron wrote:The fucking enviro whackos see this they will just shit.

Hell, LTS and his buddy in Sedona don't need to see this to lose it. Dude thinks planes are dumping fuel on him on purpose and that it is killing him and already killed his cat. Pretty funny read:

http://www.closetheairport.com/

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 2:44 pm

I was on a plane (probably in the late 80s) that lost an engine on takeoff from Miami. One of the old trijet designs, maybe a 727-200. We flew out over the Atlantic and dumped fuel for 7-8 minutes. Sprayed out of nozzles on the wingtips.

By the time we landed back in Miami, the runway was lined with emergency equipment. One of the fire engines was working on a grass fire that we started. When we returned to the terminal, I noticed they parked the plane in such a manner that you couldn't see the side where the engine blew. Good times, good times.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:21 pm

Didn't hear a thing. And the pilot assured us he could land with two engines.

Pucker factor? That would be the charter jet out of Milwaukee during a winter storm. Some Mexican airline whose name escapes me. Had to deice the plane twice. This was also one of those jets that had two engines back by the tail. We were sitting several rows ahead of the engines.

Maybe 10 seconds after takeoff, as we're climbing through sleet and cloud cover, there's a large bang that comes from the area of the starboard engine. 5 seconds later, another large bang. Then a third.

Then a crew member with the word "Techno" on his shirt comes back and looks out the window, probably making sure the engine is still there. He returns to the cockpit without a word.

We continue to climb. No more explosions. No word from the captain. Guy behind us is freaking out, to the point that one of the officers is summoned from the cockpit.

He gives a rambling explanation about how sometimes the deicing fluid gets in the fuel system and causes the engine to backfire. Say what? They never addressed the issue to the rest of the passengers. I've taken Valium every single flight since. True fucking story.

I'd like to hear Lefty's explanation for this one.

Go Coogs' · Post by **Go Coogs'** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:52 pm

Landing in Reno, NV in 65mph gusts was brutal. It felt like the plane was falling out of the sky and hitting the ground every 30 seconds for the last 10 minutes of the flight. During the landing some lady's pacemaker went awry and paramedics had to come on board and get her out of there before we could exit the plane.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:57 pm

Ho
Lee
Fuk

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:49 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:I was on a plane (probably in the late 80s) that lost an engine on takeoff from Miami. One of the old trijet designs, maybe a 727-200. We flew out over the Atlantic and dumped fuel for 7-8 minutes. Sprayed out of nozzles on the wingtips.

By the time we landed back in Miami, the runway was lined with emergency equipment. One of the fire engines was working on a grass fire that we started. When we returned to the terminal, I noticed they parked the plane in such a manner that you couldn't see the side where the engine blew. Good times, good times.

Pretty decent chance it was a 727-200 of either American or Eastern. Those were solid old birds with a three person crew with the flight engineer flying sideways.

Hard to imagine that something from a 727 started a grass fire. All three engines were damn near right on the center line of the runway. Must have been pretty crazy. I also doubt they parked the plane so as to hide any damage. Airport procedures are pretty firm on how and where jets park at the terminal, and jet bridges and stairs often only work on one side of the jet. But hell, maybe they did.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:03 pm

I'm in agreement with shmick. Zipperheads can't drive in 2 dimensions (cars), what makes anyone think they can do it in 3.

BTW, That plane looks kind of odd. Seems to have too much fuselage for 2 rather scrawny looking turbo-props. Is it some sort of newfangled turbo-jet that has added a prop for better mileage?

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:11 pm

I was riding a Dash 8 out of North Bend, OR back to Portland coming home for the weekend. Came off military power and was still climbing, I felt a vibration in the starboard engine that should not have been there. Nothing real serious, but noticeable, I kept it to myself. Leveled off at 16, and it was real noticeable, to me anyway. Prop balance vibration , not serious but there.

I mentioned it to the 12 year old kid flying the thing as I was deplaning, he said maintenance knew about it a few days ago, but he had at least 3 more trips to North Bend and back that day, and they told him to write it up again that night.

On an MD 84 commuter run on Alaska from San Diego to Portland a few years back, I was making the trip about twice monthly for business and to see the boys at Pendelton. Landing on 11 right at PDX into a horrific east wind one day. He had to crab it pretty hard and really bounced it down twice. I had got to know the pilot pretty well over the last year, so I asked him if maintenance needed to come inspect the gear before he turned around. He gave me his best "fuck you" look and laughed.

Hit some pretty rough cold air turbulence on the east side of the Cascades on a DC 9 way back in the day, and watched the wing tips flex about 3 feet up and down, shit falling out of the racks, shit flying every where, people screaming, I was telling them to shut the fuck up, pilot would get us out of it, had to make a pretty quick 4000 foot descent, but that took care of it.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:14 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:Didn't hear a thing. And the pilot assured us he could land with two engines.

Pucker factor? That would be the charter jet out of Milwaukee during a winter storm. Some Mexican airline whose name escapes me. Had to deice the plane twice. This was also one of those jets that had two engines back by the tail. We were sitting several rows ahead of the engines.

Maybe 10 seconds after takeoff, as we're climbing through sleet and cloud cover, there's a large bang that comes from the area of the starboard engine. 5 seconds later, another large bang. Then a third.

Then a crew member with the word "Techno" on his shirt comes back and looks out the window, probably making sure the engine is still there. He returns to the cockpit without a word.

We continue to climb. No more explosions. No word from the captain. Guy behind us is freaking out, to the point that one of the officers is summoned from the cockpit.

He gives a rambling explanation about how sometimes the deicing fluid gets in the fuel system and causes the engine to backfire. Say what? They never addressed the issue to the rest of the passengers. I've taken Valium every single flight since. True fucking story.

I'd like to hear Lefty's explanation for this one.

So this was likely a DC-9. De-icing twice is an ATC issue in that as soon as a plane is de-iced, it should be rolling down the runway within a few minutes. Or the captain didn't like the quality of the first de-icing and asked that it was redone.

I am 95% certain that you experienced a compressor stall in that engine. This is a disruption of the airflow thru the engine, usually in the compressor stage, hence the name. Many pax will call it an explosion or backfire as it is most often accompanied with a loud bang and flames exiting the engine in both directions. Many of these stalls are over as soon as they started. Some continue for a few seconds and others require shutting down the engine. USAirways had compressor stalls after hitting the birds.

One thing I am also certain didn't happen was the de-icing fluid didn't get into the fuel system. That is a closed system and if the de icing fluid could do that so could rain, sand, dirt, etc, etc. What likely happened was the pilots changed the throttle setting and the water (sleet and clouds that Goobs mentioned) caused a quick disruption of the airflow. This resulted in the three bangs and had the engine not been tail mounted would have also put on an impressive display of fire. The earlier engines were much more likely to experience a compressor stall or surge than today's engines.

However, birds can easily cause compressor stalls in even the most modern engines. Modern jets are usually able to handle such events and they don't even make the news. USAirways and Capt Sully being the exception.

Couple of videos of compressor stalls:

The first is likely what Goobs heard.

Here is another A330 that experiences a compressor stall while still on the ground. Notice in the slow motion the immediate yaw and compensation by using the rudder.

The final is a full on emergency as the engine ingests a bird and the stall continues to the point the engine has to be shut down.

Goobs, as uncomfortable as that was for all the pax, it is something that pilots train for all the time. The part that sucks is that they crew never made an announcement.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:15 pm

Left Seater wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:I was on a plane (probably in the late 80s) that lost an engine on takeoff from Miami. One of the old trijet designs, maybe a 727-200. We flew out over the Atlantic and dumped fuel for 7-8 minutes. Sprayed out of nozzles on the wingtips.

By the time we landed back in Miami, the runway was lined with emergency equipment. One of the fire engines was working on a grass fire that we started. When we returned to the terminal, I noticed they parked the plane in such a manner that you couldn't see the side where the engine blew. Good times, good times.
Pretty decent chance it was a 727-200 of either American or Eastern. Those were solid old birds with a three person crew with the flight engineer flying sideways.

Hard to imagine that something from a 727 started a grass fire. All three engines were damn near right on the center line of the runway. Must have been pretty crazy. I also doubt they parked the plane so as to hide any damage. Airport procedures are pretty firm on how and where jets park at the terminal, and jet bridges and stairs often only work on one side of the jet. But hell, maybe they did.

I actually pulled up the NTSB report months later. I'm pretty sure in mentioned the parts scattering and the grassfire. But it was almost 30 years ago. Grassfire could have been started by the pilot flicking his cigarette out the window before takeoff.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:20 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR_72

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:40 pm

Go Coogs' wrote:Landing in Reno, NV in 65mph gusts was brutal. It felt like the plane was falling out of the sky and hitting the ground every 30 seconds for the last 10 minutes of the flight.

Got to make a distinction here. 65 mph gusts were likely on descent. Doubt the airline or airport would allow a landing if winds were gusting to 65mph at the surface. The only thing I could think that might allow it is if the wind was directly on the nose.

Most manufacturers of airplanes have a demonstrated value that they tested the plane in during certification. This isn't a limitation per say, but many companies then add a maximum allowable limit for wet and dry runways. As an example Airbus demonstrated that the A330 could land safely in a 32 knot crosswind with gusts as high as 40 knots on a dry runway. However, I do not know of one airline that allows landings with a crosswind component of 32 knots in an A330.

All that said, was just for clarification and not to take away from what you experienced. Turbulence and wind gusts on descent can be very unsettling. I don't enjoy it much myself. Usually the turbulence on descent seems worse because we are in it for longer. On takeoff we are climbing at a few thousand feet per minute and are able to get out of the "rough" stuff in just a few minutes. Further the engines are producing far more thrust during climb and that helps reduce the vertical motions of turbulence. On the descent phase the engines are often at flight idle and producing very little thrust. Any turbulence is magnified and you can experience pretty good "drops" or slight feelings of your stomach in your throat. Due to ATC procedures of stair step approaches, this means planes often spend more time in turbulence during this phase of flight.

In you case the wind and rough air was magnified by the terrain surrounding Reno. Lots of mountains that get the air stirred up on clear calm days. Mix in huge gusts and the terrain only makes it worse. The same thing happens in Vegas, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Denver, Portland, etc, etc, etc.

The good news is that while turbulence is uncomfortable, it usually isn't responsible for a plane losing control.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:45 pm

One more fun airplane story. Years ago (late 70s) I worked for a company that had offices in Madison and also the Quad Cities. Owner had a pilot’s license and owned a Cessna, probably a 172, that he used to visit his other locations. The VP that I reported to also had a pilot’s license, but flew infrequently. I rode with him one day down to Davenport. By the time we returned to Madison, the wind had kicked up quite a bit, probably 30 mph or so.

We bounced pretty hard when he landed, the plane even pitching forward a bit. I’ve been in plenty of single engine aircraft, and that was the hardest landing I’d ever experienced. When we got back to the hangar I immediately got out to look for damage. Sure enough a piece was chipped out of one of the wheel rims (can’t believe the tire didn’t explode) and one tip of the prop was slightly bent.

Not sure if the boss ever let him fly again. I know I never went up with him again.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:47 pm

KC Scott wrote:About 4 years ago coming into MSP on a smaller Delta jet, we start landing, wheels touch for a few seconds and then right back up
Pilot doesn't say anything. We circle for a few minutes then land as usual. Pilot still quiet

On my way out asked him what happened.
There was another plane crossing our runway on the first touch.

Oh? OK then

If you haven't had a go around for traffic or a runway incursion then you haven't flown very much. Someone estimated that there are about 35 go arounds for traffic on the average day in the US. Most don't get to the point of wheels on the ground, but at least your crew was competent and had one set of eyes outside the plane.

The part that pisses me off about your story and times I have experienced the same thing is the complete silence from the front. I understand that there was a crap ton going on when one of them called for the go-around. Things have to happen quickly and in a hurry. But once they were re established in the pattern there is no reason they couldn't take 20 seconds and explain what happened and that all is well.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:03 pm

schmick wrote:Why would you get on a plane flown by an Asian? Have you seen these fuckers try to drive? (Save the tokyo drift nonsense) You can blindfold them with dental floss and this is what the 4th? 5th? commercial airliner they have crashed in the last 8 months?

While I do avoid certain Asian airlines myself, it is for different reasons than you.

Asian culture is very strict when it comes to elders and those more senior in title. Add on top of that the Asian deference to technology and it can be a very bad mix. There are examples of co-pilots not saying a word and allowing the captain to fly the plane in a dangerous or deadly manner. This is something that the country of Korea is working hard to overcome in their airline capacity.

Then you take the fact that they often think computers can't ever be incorrect and it is often a deadly mix.

Asiana 214 is a combo of these things. The pilots had to hand fly the plane and their skills were clearly lacking as they were used to using the auto land capability. Further it wasn't until the final 2.8 seconds that one of the right seat or jump seat calls out for a go around. Too late at that point.

Go Coogs' · Post by **Go Coogs'** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:13 pm

Left Seater wrote:
Go Coogs' wrote:Landing in Reno, NV in 65mph gusts was brutal. It felt like the plane was falling out of the sky and hitting the ground every 30 seconds for the last 10 minutes of the flight.

Got to make a distinction here. 65 mph gusts were likely on descent. Doubt the airline or airport would allow a landing if winds were gusting to 65mph at the surface. The only thing I could think that might allow it is if the wind was directly on the nose.

Yeah, I'm not real sure if we were head on or if the gusts were lighter at the time. I only remember the feeling during the descent and final approach. I remember when we got to Tahoe the news reported 65 MPH gusts in Reno and 18-wheelers had turned over on the roads, so maybe the wind was head on. I wasn't freaked out by any means, but I do remember a bunch of screaming and panic in the main cabin during the descent. I also remember people who frequented Reno by flight said its one of the most brutal approaches in the US due to the high winds and surrounding mountains.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:16 pm

This is some good reading.

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014 ... -447-crash

Go Coogs' · Post by **Go Coogs'** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:01 pm

Papa Willie wrote:I've had 4 programs on planes I was a little concerned about.

1. The worst was taking off out of Minneapolis heading to Edmonton in a blizzard one night on a 727. It was snowing like all shit. Halfway down the runway, (I would assume) we caught a MAJOR crosswind. The plane literally felt like it slid 15-20 feet sideways, and the left wing lurches up. Fuckers screamed, but the pilot took care of it, & they bought the passengers (not many on the plane) a drink - which I thought was pretty cool.

2. In an old A-300 going from Portland to Atlanta - we hit some serious fucking stormage around Nebraska. People started vomiting. I chuckled at them, but was happier when it was done with.

3. On a redeye from Seattle to Atlanta on a 767 one night. I was about the only one awake on the plane. I'm next to the left engine. We're about halfway home, and suddenly a big light shines on the engine (I guess landing lights - which was strange at 35,000 feet). As I'm kind of like "WTF", one of the pilots just kind of casually comes walking back saying "hi" to a couple of people. Walks past me with a smile. I'm like "uh...". I look back at him, and sure enough - he's just staring at the engine. That was a shitty feeling. (Any idea what that could have been about, Lefty?)

4. Hit a microburst - or just an extreme air pocket flying into Tampa one day when I was about 11 in an old DC-8. I've hit lots of pockets, but I swear it felt like we did a free-fall for about 200 feet or so. If we wouldn't have had our seat belts on for that one, we would have been moist lumpy chandeliers. I've never experienced total a fall like that - on a roller coaster or anything else...

That being said - I still love flying. To be even more fucked up - I'm acrophobic as shit when it comes to looking over the edge of cliffs, buildings or other scenarios like that, but flying doesn't bother me at all. Let Goobs go figure.

Nobody really reads your posts.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:27 pm

Papa Willie wrote: We're about halfway home, and suddenly a big light shines on the engine (I guess landing lights - which was strange at 35,000 feet). As I'm kind of like "WTF", one of the pilots just kind of casually comes walking back saying "hi" to a couple of people. Walks past me with a smile. I'm like "uh...". I look back at him, and sure enough - he's just staring at the engine. That was a shitty feeling. (Any idea what that could have been about, Lefty?)

Inspection light on the fuselage, just for that reason. I have had it happen to me a few times. Maybe 2 or 3 times in about 500 flights. They got some kind of indicator in the cockpit that warranted a visual inspection.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:32 pm

Go Coogs' wrote:
Left Seater wrote:
Go Coogs' wrote: I also remember people who frequented Reno by flight said its one of the most brutal approaches in the US due to the high winds and surrounding mountains.

It can be, but Denver has my vote for low level turbulence.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:47 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:One more fun airplane story. Years ago (late 70s) I worked for a company that had offices in Madison and also the Quad Cities. Owner had a pilot’s license and owned a Cessna, probably a 172, that he used to visit his other locations. The VP that I reported to also had a pilot’s license, but flew infrequently. I rode with him one day down to Davenport. By the time we returned to Madison, the wind had kicked up quite a bit, probably 30 mph or so.

We bounced pretty hard when he landed, the plane even pitching forward a bit. I’ve been in plenty of single engine aircraft, and that was the hardest landing I’d ever experienced. When we got back to the hangar I immediately got out to look for damage. Sure enough a piece was chipped out of one of the wheel rims (can’t believe the tire didn’t explode) and one tip of the prop was slightly bent.

Not sure if the boss ever let him fly again. I know I never went up with him again.

Cessna 172 at 30 mph cross wind is right at the envelope of a good experienced pilots and the aircrafts ability. I think the book says a 20 knot max crosswind, and that is going to depend if and how much it is quartering. I did some work up to about 25 knots, but there was a pretty good pucker factor involved. You get any downward movement of that wind speed you better hope you have enough space between you and the ground to put on some airspeed, other wise you are dropping out. There are dudes bragging on forums about 35 knot crosswind landings, but it is just bragging.

I am thinking the dude probably did not get to fly that again. He would have had to entered the prop strike in the log book, and that is a mandatory tear down and crank inspection. Goodbye 8 to 10 K, may as well just do the next due overhaul then. If I was the next guy flying it and found the prop strike, I am not taking it up that way.

The Cessna 172 is a economical plane to fly and gets you around and I have a lot of time in them, but after being in my buddy's Maule M7 at 235 HP and a 3 blade Hartzell prop, there is no comparison. You still have to pay attention to shit in a 172, you can overload one real easy.

Some hippie loaded himself and 3 others up in a 172, they were organizing the County Fair outside of Eugene, so I assume they had baggage, grass strip, hot day in July and put in into the trees at the end of the strip and killed them all. I put the same plane at the same strip in the simulator with 4 - 160 # people, half tanks of fuel and 40 pounds of luggage, and I could not get the thing to clear the trees, and crashed every time, until I eliminated one person, went down to quarter tanks of fuel, and had some anemic rate of climb. Idiots. Simple math kills some people.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:23 pm

Derron wrote:...a mandatory...crank inspection.

"I got this."

--Irie Gazos

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:29 am

No idea what a buddy holly propeller is, but that turbo prop IS a jet engine.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:55 am

"turbo" confused him.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:18 am

Derron wrote:
Papa Willie wrote: We're about halfway home, and suddenly a big light shines on the engine (I guess landing lights - which was strange at 35,000 feet). As I'm kind of like "WTF", one of the pilots just kind of casually comes walking back saying "hi" to a couple of people. Walks past me with a smile. I'm like "uh...". I look back at him, and sure enough - he's just staring at the engine. That was a shitty feeling. (Any idea what that could have been about, Lefty?)

Inspection light on the fuselage, just for that reason. I have had it happen to me a few times. Maybe 2 or 3 times in about 500 flights. They got some kind of indicator in the cockpit that warranted a visual inspection.

Have to agree with Derron. Some indication in the cockpit didn't mesh with what the other instruments and their experience was telling them. Could have been a fire warning but they were not seeing any other indications like high exhaust temps or high oil temps.

Dude just went on a walkabout to confirm what his mind and experience were telling him.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:21 am

Derron wrote:
Go Coogs' wrote: I also remember people who frequented Reno by flight said its one of the most brutal approaches in the US due to the high winds and surrounding mountains.
It can be, but Denver has my vote for low level turbulence.

Albuquerque has my vote, especially if landing to the west.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:26 am

Derron wrote:There are dudes bragging on forums about 35 knot crosswind landings, but it is just bragging.

And there is the reason I avoid most pilot forums. Same I avoid most team specific college football boards.

Derron wrote:you can overload one real easy.

No, not really. Unless you can't do fifth grade math. But if addition is hard for you, then yeah you can get died real quick.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:13 am

I always loved fly-ins up in Canada with those bush pilots.

"Be sure to fasten your seat belts. Makes it easier for them to find the bodies."

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:38 pm

schmick wrote:4 of my 5 vehicles have turbos

How many TVs you got? A friend wants to know.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:37 pm

schmick wrote:9 if you include the projector

You ever run a troll called Rick in SLC ??

That mutha fucka claimed he owned 3 McDonalds franchises...