Qantas stuffs up yet again - ticket fiasco
jacko
chance to see tennis' brightest stars snatched away was the tale of
woe for about 500 fans who faced missing tonight's Australian Open
action after a ticket bungle.
The fans from all over Australia, and others from Canada, the US
and Germany, had bought Qantas Holidays packages covering today and
tonight's action, and the final three days of the tournament, only to be
told Qantas had failed to get tonight's tickets.
http://www.smh.com.au/breaking/0001/27/A49411-2000Jan27.shtml
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/04_sport/story_13346.asp
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-27jan2000-69.htm
"Qantas Holidays spokeswoman, Janet Collingwood, says the
company has taken full responsibilty for the ticketing mess.
"There appears to have been some error, we're not
sure where that error is at this stage," she said."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
iancixugire smith
jacko <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86ompv$ke3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
AllStar
to listen to me, I'd gladly explain to you the "many stuff ups" I have
personally encountered with them, not to mention the various others!
You may also care to visit this NG more often and several others, and you'll
see with your own eyes.
Jacko's information is correct.
Mike
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Metro
say that
it S***ts me to see the way the media has decided that Qantas is a tall
poppy and it's
time to lop it down to size. Next thing we'll see a resurrection of Hinch
I'm sure, just to dump a
shame file on them. Never give anyone an even break while they're down seems
to be the motto
here, just so long as we keep fawning over Vergin.
Metro
saying is I'm sick to death
of every time I look at the TV I see QF copping a bagging. Yes there are
problems and they do have
deeper issues that need to be addressed but at least I don't have my heart
in my mouth every time I
fly with an local major. Try flogging round some of the overseas
destinations and see what stuff ups
can really be like. You recently commented yourself that your son was on an
A320 which went
round following a foreign object problem on the runway. Were you worried
about the ability of the crew
would you have been more worried if they were a QF crew. QF like many others
are feeling the pressure
of the deregulation of their markets. This means they have to adjust the way
they do business. In the end they
are still a bloody good airline and so are Ansett. I have made many round
robin days of Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide
Sydney with useful time in each city and never a care about whether the
aircraft was safe or whether the crew
were trained. I know of a person who was seriously injured overseas and was
given the barest of medical care despite
their appalling injuries. They finally made it to a port that QF fly from
and in their words. Their worries were over.
They were gently given every assistance until they made it back to Sydney
and were then afforded every courtesy
during the tarmac transfer to the waiting ambulance. Why not go and visit
some to the overseas "republics"
and hoon round in a ROMBAC111 or a luverly old clunker that was once the
finest in the Soviet fleet.
Then come back and see if you still think we have the worst airlines around.
I doubt you will.
AllStar <mwe...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3890...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Russell Waterson
falling apart at the edges.
Bernie Samms
against poor old Quaintarse than this group has ever imagined! The tennis
thing is though another symptom of a little problem coming to the fore that
I feel is tied in with the pressures of market privatisation. Qantas should
take a big breath and have a good look at itself. All in all though its
still a great airline. Ansett is not so squeeky clean with nosewheel
collapse and a few others and suffers similar pressures. I am sure James
Strong will be doing a bit of serious navel gazing with his senior team in
the next few weeks! Both our airlines are pretty damn good at the end of the
day.
Bernie Samms
Kingston Beach Tasmania
Australia
Aero Club of Southern Tasmania www.acst.com.au
Prologic Pty Ltd www.prologic.com.au
Russell Waterson <wate...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:38902...@news.per.paradox.net.au...
Trevor Fenn
<38902...@news.per.paradox.net.au>:
>What's happing to Quantas? Ever since the crash in India they seem to be
>falling apart at the edges.
>
Crash in India?
Where did you go to school?
There is no U in Qantas.
Trevor Fenn
AllStar
enviable Safety record and on a larger scale, service wise they can both
compete very favourably with other leading Airlines.
To blame the Media for " continously slam-dunking QF" is a little unfair,
the facts are there. Our "National Carrier" the Airline representative of
all things "Australian", an empire we as Australians can and should be proud
of, is letting us down a bit more often than is perhaps accceptable.
I do agree tho, that the "Cheaper, tabloid Media" in Australia could
sensationalize a fly hitting my car windscreen at 30kms and make a "Horrific
Tradgedy" out of it. Hence I don't read much of the "local" media and stick
to the more reputable newspapers, Tv News and Newsgroups.
I'd suggest that the QF PR machine has done it's fair share of stuff ups, as
well the Marketting Gurus.
Cheers,
mike
Malcolm Weir
caused to appear as if it was written:
>wate...@starwon.com.au (Russell Waterson) wrote in
><38902...@news.per.paradox.net.au>:
>
>>What's happing to Quantas? Ever since the crash in India they seem to be
>>falling apart at the edges.
>Crash in India?
My guess is that Senor Waterson meant Thailand, in reference to the
unscheduled arrival of a B747-400 at the local golf club at Bangkok airport.
However, the media never bothers to point out that an expensive aircraft on
a golf course is embarrassing, but if no-one was hurt, this tends to support
the notion that an airline is safe, rather than refute it!
>Where did you go to school?
>
>There is no U in Qantas.
Hey, Thailand, India, spare U's, you're just being picky!
>Trevor Fenn
Malc.
JF Mezei
>
> What's happing to Quantas? Ever since the crash in India they seem to be
> falling apart at the edges.
I think it is just a question of the media spending more time reporting what
they find out about Qantas.
Every airline has problems, and if one reporter sets out to paint a black
picture of an airline, he can do the airline a lot of harm.
I am not saying that Qantas is not faulty of anything, and I personally very
much dislike their ground services, but i certaintly would not call Qantas
incompetent or unsafe.
chi...@hanvy.greatxscape.net
Cheers
Chas
Bernie Samms <ber...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:86pc0r$svv$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
> I've never heard of Qantas crashing in India! Must be a more nasty plot
> against poor old Quaintarse than this group has ever imagined! The tennis
> thing is though another symptom of a little problem coming to the fore
that
> I feel is tied in with the pressures of market privatisation. Qantas
should
> take a big breath and have a good look at itself. All in all though its
> still a great airline. Ansett is not so squeeky clean with nosewheel
> collapse and a few others and suffers similar pressures. I am sure James
> Strong will be doing a bit of serious navel gazing with his senior team in
> the next few weeks! Both our airlines are pretty damn good at the end of
the
> day.
>
> Bernie Samms
> Kingston Beach Tasmania
> Australia
>
> Aero Club of Southern Tasmania www.acst.com.au
> Prologic Pty Ltd www.prologic.com.au
>
> Russell Waterson <wate...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
> news:38902...@news.per.paradox.net.au...
> > falling apart at the edges.
> >
d
Metro <oldm...@plank.com.au> wrote in message
news:wAUj4.352$VJ1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> I'm not disputing the stuff ups or the problems they have created, what
I'm
> saying is I'm sick to death
> of every time I look at the TV I see QF copping a bagging. Yes there are
> problems and they do have
> deeper issues that need to be addressed but at least I don't have my heart
> in my mouth every time I
> fly with an local major. Try flogging round some of the overseas
> destinations and see what stuff ups
> can really be like. You recently commented yourself that your son was on
an
> A320 which went
> round following a foreign object problem on the runway. Were you worried
> about the ability of the crew
> would you have been more worried if they were a QF crew. QF like many
others
> are feeling the pressure
> of the deregulation of their markets. This means they have to adjust the
way
> they do business. In the end they
> are still a bloody good airline and so are Ansett. I have made many round
> robin days of Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide
JF Mezei
> However, the media never bothers to point out that an expensive aircraft on
> a golf course is embarrassing, but if no-one was hurt, this tends to support
> the notion that an airline is safe, rather than refute it!
What is important is whether Qantas, as an airline, has flying philosophies in
place which may have affected the pilots of that golf course-bound 747.
For instance, Qantas prefers that its pilots use the brakes and not the thrust
reversers on that type of aircraft. Nothing inherently wrong with that I
guess. But if it means that pilots lose the reflex/instinct to deploy the
thrust reversers, this may have had quite a significant impact on the fact
that the plane overshot the runway. The pilots were fully aware that the
runway required "serious" braking, yet did not deploy thrust reversers.
There is also the question of a go-around having been called, and then the
captain cancelling that once wheels touched down.
Paul Saccani
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:24:27 -0800, Malcolm Weir <ma...@cwix.com>
wrote:
>JF, did you *read* John's post?
>
>He stated, explicitly:
>
>"And, the QF procedure is to use the brakes, AND idle reverse."
>
>Which is quite a bit different from your allegation: see the bit after the
>word "AND"!
>In this context, "bugger all" is an anglo-saxon term meaning "very
>little"...
You might want to make some allowance for JF speaking French rather
than English.
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Bang Na,
Bangkok,
Thailand
Paul Saccani
Fenn) wrote:
>I'm curious about the remark that hydroplaning prevents squat switch
>activation. Weight on the wheels activates squat switches not wheel
>rotational speed.
Right you are. The aircraft landed gently, and was programmed so that
all switches would have to be on to allow spoiler and reverse thrust
to be used, irregardles of pilot selected position. From the FDR, one
switch on the upwind side was not activated.
Hence, spoiler and reverse thrust were over riden.
Paul Saccani
<hugh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Is IDDLE also an Anglo-Saxon word, or do you mean "idle"?
He speaks french for goodness sake!
Paul Saccani
<ha...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Paul Saccani" <sac...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:
>> The aircraft landed gently, and was programmed so that
>> all switches would have to be on to allow spoiler and reverse thrust
>> to be used, irregardles of pilot selected position.
>
>Which incident was this, Paul?
Lufthansa in Warsaw, a good few years back. The programming was
changed as a result.
I don't have any notes to hand, but may I suggest that you look up the
"risks forum" on the net. This is devoted to the use of computers in
critical applications, and IIRC, has a detailed analysis of the
accident, from a control systems point of view.
Oh, and my mistake, it also locked out the brakes as well!
Definitely a bad programming decision. If say 2 out 3 switches agree,
it would be more rational to accept the majority than to lock out all
braking systems. It puts undue reliance on none of the switches ever
failing to require 3 of 3. OTOH, it certainly reduces the risks of in
flight deployment. Again, a case of risk management, but in this
case, perhaps amiss.
Phil C
pretty hard and people are approaching burn out also be considered . We
touched on this last airline bashing session
Eddington and strong are torn between balancing the books to the
shareholders satisfaction I believe not getting all the data and drowning
in a sea of weak middle and upper managers whose only solution is upward
delegation and wait for it to come back down from above . HR nightmares
and outsourcing misinformation.
Like some one said if you think this is tough go on golliwog air and see how
really different . A lot of costs are proportioned to safety in this
country.
Government is put of its depth . etc.
Perhaps we ought to get behind and feed our collective gripes up to the
airlines.
Lets get a few of the Koala's out and let Jacko Ted and us have a lash at
them instead of just *issing about on this thing. sorry ladies but some
of these blokes should put their *alls on the line.
Jacko your turn and whats wrong with Qantas is happening throughout
business all over this country. Its not Just QF they are just a big fat
juicy target of opportunity.
We are fat dumb and happy . I see brick bats a lot lets offer some
solutions also. remember we only have 19.73 million people in this land .
and a lot of space between cost and profit centres and cost per $ of
infrastructure here is not cheap. To be fair I think we get not a perfect
run but a pretty good one all the same.
Your Turn Jacko mate <G> Not my best day and apologies to the English
teachers amongst us .
But the ticket thing Oi!! Murphies law I Guess. And another Pr nightmare
and a tinge of arrogance from the troops on the ground. Some one better
have a word with that chap . He looks like a prime candidate for a posting
to Kununurra or Marble bar to me . Jacko could you pen a Qantas ditty
using the theme Retrench retrain or redeploy ( not in that order) to say a
Gilbert and sullivans Tune . I just know you love Qantas here is an outlet
for you.
I am going to try on this nice Jacket with the very long sleeves in the blue
rubber room . I think its time I retired from this group .
--
http://members.tripod.com/~philcleaver/list.html
advantage id# iek-490
"AllStar" <mwe...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3890...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Metro I agree with a lot of what you are saying, both Ansett and QF have an
enviable Safety record and on a larger scale, service wise they can both
compete very favourably with other leading Airlines.
To blame the Media for " continously slam-dunking QF" is a little unfair,
the facts are there. Our "National Carrier" the Airline representative of
all things "Australian", an empire we as Australians can and should be proud
of, is letting us down a bit more often than is perhaps accceptable.
I do agree tho, that the "Cheaper, tabloid Media" in Australia could
sensationalize a fly hitting my car windscreen at 30kms and make a "Horrific
Tradgedy" out of it. Hence I don't read much of the "local" media and stick
to the more reputable newspapers, Tv News and Newsgroups.
I'd suggest that the QF PR machine has done it's fair share of stuff ups, as
well the Marketting Gurus.
Cheers,
mike
AllStar
AllStar
suggestions. I am all for making profits, I am also for giving excellent
Customer Service and Value for money.
I am also in favour of Training from the cleaner to the MD.
Maybe Jacko, <grin>, could organise a Training Schedule. I think at the end
of the day, it's not the quality of Safety that's at stake, it's the
QUALITY OF SERVICE that's at stake.
Flight AN 163, from Brisbane via Melbourne to Perth, yesterday, according to
11 passengers I spoke to yesterday, 3 of whom were realtives of mine,
maintain that service was shocking:) Mike
HERD J D
: What's happing to Quantas? Ever since the crash in India they seem to be
: falling apart at the edges.
Or perhaps there are'nt more stuffups, jut the usual number being
reported on a bit more.
--
Cheers,
Herdy.
he...@startrekmail.com
http://u2.newcastle.edu.au/~mgjdh
HERD J D
: wate...@starwon.com.au (Russell Waterson) wrote in
: <38902...@news.per.paradox.net.au>:
:
: >falling apart at the edges.
: >
: Crash in India?
: Where did you go to school?
:
: There is no U in Qantas.
: Trevor Fenn
And no crash in India.
Starts with a T. City starts with a B. Captian wanted to get to the
golf course in a hurry.
John Bartels
comments......
but
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3890C54B...@vl.videotron.ca...
> Malcolm Weir wrote:
>
> For instance, Qantas prefers that its pilots use the brakes and not the
thrust
> reversers on that type of aircraft. Nothing inherently wrong with that I
> guess. But if it means that pilots lose the reflex/instinct to deploy the
> thrust reversers, this may have had quite a significant impact on the fact
> that the plane overshot the runway. The pilots were fully aware that the
> runway required "serious" braking, yet did not deploy thrust reversers.
Lots of things aren't in the normal chain of events, but you are expected to
use / do them when the time arrives. I've only ever done one abort in a
heavy, and it wasn't for any of the things (fire, engines, etc) that we
train for. But, when the time came, I didn't even think about it.
The reversers are a bit of a furphy. They make bugger all difference to the
braking distance, so I doubt their deployment or not would have made any
difference. And, the QF procedure is to use the brakes, AND idle reverse.
>
> There is also the question of a go-around having been called, and then the
> captain cancelling that once wheels touched down.
I don't see any inherent problem here. I've done it a couple of times. Like
everything in aviation, any of this has to be seen in context, and at the
moment we don't have enough information to put what few facts we do know
into context.
Quite simply there are times when a go around is a great idea, others when
it isn't, and sometimes it just can't be done. And sometimes the line
between is very grey.
How many of you are aware that procedure for controlling an sliding heavy on
the ground involves cancelling the braking and reverse thrust (much as you
won't get a sliding car back under control if you put you foot hard on the
brake)? We don't know enough about what happened.
The runway involved is prone to flooding, and the locals aren't inclined
towards telling you about it. I landed there a couple of years ago, and it
was very, very wet. When we told the tower that there was in the order of 3
inches of water over the touchdown zone, they didn't bother passing that
info on to anyone else. We made a broadcast on the tower frequency......so
at least some of the a/c on the way in found out.
JB
JF Mezei
> Lots of things aren't in the normal chain of events, but you are expected to
> use / do them when the time arrives.
That makes sense.
However, if using thrust reversers on that plane is not corporate policy for
normal flight, what I find hard to understand is the following:
-heavy rain (eg: runway will be slippery)
-go around commanded
-go around cancelled, then actual braking commences (late compared to if
go-arround had
not been commanded)
-captain increases the auto-brakes to maximum since he realises that braking
will be tough
But captain does not command thrust reversers to increased the effectiveness
of braking ?
I understand why thurst reversers would not be needed under normal
circumstances, but when you know it will be a tough landing/braking, why not
use them if they will reduce braking distance by some ?
Phil C
If over the months one was to look at the posts via say Deja ( I dont have
the time )
Pull out the salient facts
Tab the number of references
Create a survey ( with questions not biased to skew the sample --like er
lets say er WAC!! )
Post the survey to selected Aviation and travel groups
also issue to Ticketing agents when they hand the docs and vouchers
over.
I say this because we are all guilty of going down a track if a question
or gripe slips in and predicates the survey only the disgruntled one
will answer as they are mor motivated to do so.
Sure The math can factor this in but - I prefer true raw data
especially on the comments section ( must be codified and quantified and
incorporated in subsequent sampling )
INTERESTING that I have ask both Qantas and Ansett and other selected
airlines if their management or management nominee Monior such Newsgroups
as this and travel groups.
NOT ONE REPLIED ?? So I sent it out on a Corporate letterhead of some
significance to every airline in the world 16% Replied 6 % said yes
occasionally
Only 2 said daily SAS and Virgin
Both these operators were not only replying but asking for further input
and suggestions. Thats a service ethic that be no better or worse than our
boys but it is sure slick and impressive . Which after all is but one
element of customer focus ( if not satisfaction)
So where does this put elements like this group and say rec Aus travel
etc?
Short answer is I doubt SUCH A QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED at a decision
making level in Aus .
Sure they use technology to research existing customer base from their CIS
etc
But I put the contention to the collective brains trust of this group. Can
be serve a useful and CONSTRUCTIVE UNBIASED purpose to our industry ?
Perhaps not . But to do nothing changes nothing As the nice collective
NON Internet users who read our group by print outs etc said in a
delightful note
" Knowledge is the drug of the mind "
I believe that to be true . We here are custodians of knowledge gained by
this group. Can we facilitate giving something back to the industry that
gives us so much ?
This group has the fire power and collective intellect of a pretty good
corporation by virtue of its respondents . Such a group in unfettered by
promotion or other factors that may in some cases predicate keeping ideas
shut.
If we wish to run with this idea ( the computer groups suggestion box in
effect )
We may start a new thread " suggestion Box" is good enough for the purpose
and run with it. Or will we continue ( bad English and all ) to sit fat
dumb and happy like seagulls adjacent to a sea side cafe ?
Thank you for your time
Phil
--
http://members.tripod.com/~philcleaver/list.html
advantage id# iek-490
"AllStar" <mwe...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3890...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
iancixugire smith
Mark Rogers
Geoff Breach wrote:
>
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message
> > I understand why thurst reversers would not be needed under normal
> > circumstances, but when you know it will be a tough landing/braking, why
> not
> > use them if they will reduce braking distance by some ?
>
> Because they won't. Didn't you read what he wrote?
>
Of course they will. Do you think they're installed just to make
noise? He said they wouldn't reduce the distance by as much as
many people believe, not that they wouldn't reduce the braking
distance.
--Mark Rogers
p
John Bartels <john_b...@nojunk.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ctbk4.12758$3b6....@ozemail.com.au...
> As far as I know, nothing has been confirmed about any of these
> comments......
>
> but
>
> > Malcolm Weir wrote:
> >
> > For instance, Qantas prefers that its pilots use the brakes and not the
> thrust
> > reversers on that type of aircraft. Nothing inherently wrong with that I
> > guess. But if it means that pilots lose the reflex/instinct to deploy
the
> > thrust reversers, this may have had quite a significant impact on the
fact
> > that the plane overshot the runway. The pilots were fully aware that the
> > runway required "serious" braking, yet did not deploy thrust reversers.
>
to
> heavy, and it wasn't for any of the things (fire, engines, etc) that we
> train for. But, when the time came, I didn't even think about it.
>
> The reversers are a bit of a furphy. They make bugger all difference to
the
> braking distance, so I doubt their deployment or not would have made any
> difference. And, the QF procedure is to use the brakes, AND idle reverse.
wouldn't over heat, BUT I *may* be wrong. BA E145s not going to Southampton
on a wet day'cos of a lack of thrust reversers *is obviously an error*. I'm
only a poor ATSA
Cheers
Chas
JF Mezei
> > I understand why thurst reversers would not be needed under normal
> > circumstances, but when you know it will be a tough landing/braking, why
> not
> > use them if they will reduce braking distance by some ?
>
> Because they won't. Didn't you read what he wrote?
Thrust reversers are pretty expensive and add weight to an engine. If they
were so useless, they would not be added to planes. While it is true that a TR
may not provide the most of the braking and that brakes are more efficient,
what is so wrong with accepting that when your brakes are going to be reduced
due to slippery runway, that the added bnreakage from the TR would help ?
Lets say that the TR gives to an added 10% braking force. If your runway is
20% more slippery, and you land long and fast, heck, that 10% added braking
power from the TR might actually be necessary.
Again, if TR were so useless, they would not be used at all and
airframe/engine makers would not design these into the engines, saving weight
and complexity.
JF Mezei
> I too was surprised at JB's assertion that thrust reverse isn't
> all that effective in stopping an aeroplane but, you know what,
> he drives big Boeings for a living, and I don't.
There is quite a difference between "not that effective" and "does bugger all"
to stop the plane.
All I said was that in a difficult braking situation, a pilot should
instinctively use all the braking devioces at his disposal. This is something
which the Qantas pilots did not use.
(I don't call putting engines at iddle reverse the use of all available
braking resources).
Mark Rogers
John Bartels wrote:
>
> Read what I said guys. They don't make much difference, not they don't do
> anything. The standard allowance when they aren't present is 200 metres. The
> real difference is about 100 metres.
>
> NOW THE DRAWBACKS
>
> If the a/c is sliding they will take you off the side before you can say
> 's**t'.
True. If the aircraft is hydroplaning (without a loss of
direction control), however, they can be useful in placing the
aircraft more firmly on the ground and aiding in braking
effectiveness.
For example, the Lufthansa A320 accident in Warsaw was the result
of hydroplaning and running off the end of the runway. The A320
does not allow the selection of reverse thrust without squat
switch activation (which was delayed in this case by
hydroplaning). If the aircraft had been a 737, reverse thrust
would have been available (within 10 feet RA), and it's likely
that braking effectiveness would have been improved enough to
make a difference.
--Mark Rogers
Mark Rogers
Geoff Breach wrote:
>
> Mark Rogers <mmro...@tcsn.net> wrote in message
> news:3891E1E7...@tcsn.net...
> > Of course they will. Do you think they're installed just to make
> > noise? He said they wouldn't reduce the distance by as much as
> > many people believe, not that they wouldn't reduce the braking
> > distance.
>
> ... and...
>
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:38920D87...@vl.videotron.ca...
> [...]
> > Again, if TR were so useless, they would not be used at all and
> > airframe/engine makers would not design these into the engines, saving
> weight
> > and complexity.
>
> You know, I was chatting on the telephone just this morning
> with a 5000+ hour commercial pilot. I asked him why he doesn't
> appear on this newsgroup very often anymore.
>
> He, like many others before him, has become disillusioned at
> the way things work around here. He offers a bit of accurate
> and informed advice, only to be shot down in flames by
> legions of (inaccurate) armchair experts.
>
> After this outburst from Rogers and Mezei, I can see exactly
> where he is coming from.
>
I hate to point this out to you, but I'm also a 5,000+ hour
commercial transport pilot. If you go back and read what I
wrote, you'll notice it's exactly the same as what Mr. Bartels
has stated.
In fact, he wrote: "Read what I said guys. They don't make much
difference, not they don't do anything."
This is directly contrary to your post answering whether thrust
reverser will make any difference in the landing distance:
"Because they won't. Didn't you read what he wrote?"
> I too was surprised at JB's assertion that thrust reverse isn't
> all that effective in stopping an aeroplane but, you know what,
> he drives big Boeings for a living, and I don't.
>
So why are you calling us armchair quarterbacks? I fly big
Airbuses for a living, and used to fly big Boeings.
> On my take, that suggests that he probably knows a bit more
> about it than I do. It would be foolish of me to step in and
> suggest that he was wrong.
>
> Point made.
The only point you made is that you don't know what you're
talking about.
--Mark Rogers
Malcolm Weir
<jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> caused to appear as if it was written:
>John Bartels wrote:
>> Lots of things aren't in the normal chain of events, but you are expected to
>> use / do them when the time arrives.
>
>That makes sense.
>
>However, if using thrust reversers on that plane is not corporate policy for
>normal flight, what I find hard to understand is the following:
JF, did you *read* John's post?
He stated, explicitly:
"And, the QF procedure is to use the brakes, AND idle reverse."
Which is quite a bit different from your allegation: see the bit after the
word "AND"!
> -heavy rain (eg: runway will be slippery)
> -go around commanded
> -go around cancelled, then actual braking commences (late compared to if
>go-arround had
> not been commanded)
> -captain increases the auto-brakes to maximum since he realises that braking
>will be tough
>
>But captain does not command thrust reversers to increased the effectiveness
>of braking ?
>
>I understand why thurst reversers would not be needed under normal
>circumstances, but when you know it will be a tough landing/braking, why not
>use them if they will reduce braking distance by some ?
Again, from John's post:
"They make bugger all difference to the braking distance".
In this context, "bugger all" is an anglo-saxon term meaning "very
little"...
Malc.
JF Mezei
> Again, from John's post:
>
> "They make bugger all difference to the braking distance".
>
> In this context, "bugger all" is an anglo-saxon term meaning "very
> little"...
OK, for the sake of preventing misunderstandings. Please answer with a YES or
NO so that no misinterpretation can be made. Since I am a really dumb amrchair
expert, I really need very simple answers so I can understand them.
1. does "bugger all" mean "very little " ?
2. Does "bugger all" mean "NONE AT ALL" (as someone else said) ?
3. Does IDDLE REVERSE provide any braking ?
4. does IDDLE REVERSE simply prepare engine in case it is needed to reverse ?
5. Does full reverse thrust provide any braking ?
6. Is it possible to have a device which provides braking, but not reduce
braking distance ?
Martin Taylor
Al> perhaps accceptable. I do agree tho, that the "Cheaper, tabloid Media"
Al> in Australia could sensationalize a fly hitting my car windscreen at
Al> 30kms and make a "Horrific Tradgedy" out of it. Hence I don't read much
You only have to see how the media treats the road toll, refering to it
as "carnage". When I last looked, the term "carnage" was defined as
"wholesale slaughter", which to me, means that everyone's being
slaughtered out there. In fact, out of 2 million drivers in Victoria,
less than 400 a year are killed. You can do the math, if you wish, but
the same applies to anything aviation.
JB made a good point about the lack of coverage Ansett got over its
strike down Tassie way recently. Why target one airline and ignore the
other. They both should be shot down!!
Nah. Just kidding...
.. 2 wharves = 1 paradox
MJT
---------------
Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply
Gippsland, Victoria, Australia
Mark Rogers
Geoff Breach wrote:
>
> Mark Rogers <mmro...@tcsn.net> wrote in message
> news:38923939...@tcsn.net...
> MR> I hate to point this out to you, but I'm also a 5,000+ hour
> MR> commercial transport pilot. If you go back and read what I
> MR> wrote, you'll notice it's exactly the same as what Mr. Bartels
> MR> has stated.
>
> I'd like it better if you quoted me in context. The post where
> you agreed was not the one to which I was referring.
>
Before you began the armchair quarterback thread, I posted
exactly once on the subject. My quote was:
"Of course they will. Do you think they're installed just to
make noise? He said they wouldn't reduce the distance by as much
as many people believe, not that they wouldn't reduce the braking
distance."
A bit caustic perhaps, but I was responding to your general
tone. It's also exactly what Mr. Bartels said. I believe his
point was that reverse thrust doesn't reduce braking distance as
much as many people believe, and it can also create some
directional control problems. I do not, and never have had any
argument with this position. When directional control is not an
issue, however, reverse thrust can be useful in stopping the
aircraft.
If you weren't referring to this post when you started the
armchair thread, to which one were you referring?
> MR> In fact, he wrote: "Read what I said guys. They don't make much
> MR> difference, not they don't do anything."
>
> After you guys took him to task. A little too much by way
> of literal interpretation methinks.
Again, I posted exactly once, and did not contradict him.
> MR> So why are you calling us armchair quarterbacks? I fly big
> MR> Airbuses for a living [..]
>
> Does the dog wag the tail, or does the tail wag the dog? For
> my money, (electric) Airbusses have scapegoats, not pilots, but
> then I don't fly them for a living. It is human nature to
> defend what one knows...
Hmmm, I don't think I've defended Airbus in any of these
threads. I do currently fly Airbuses, but I've got about 10
times as much flight time in Boeing aircraft. If you want to
call me a scapegoat and not a pilot, that's fine, but it doesn't
make much sense. It's therefore difficult for me to feel
insulted.
> It's been enlightening, I thought the anal-retentiveness[1] factor
> in aus.aviation was high. In relative terms, it is not.
>
I rarely am involved in any kind of personal argument. I posted
once that reverse thrust does aid in braking effectiveness.
Based on that, you decided to tell me I didn't know what I was
talking about (armchair quarterback, driving the real 5,000+ hour
experts away). I don't really understand why you're surprised
that I'd defend myself, and find it interesting that you would
infer I was anal-retentive when you began the attack.
--Mark Rogers
John Bartels
anything. The standard allowance when they aren't present is 200 metres. The
real difference is about 100 metres.
NOW THE DRAWBACKS
If the a/c is sliding they will take you off the side before you can say
's**t'.
JB
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:38920D87...@vl.videotron.ca...
> Geoff Breach wrote:
> > > I understand why thurst reversers would not be needed under normal
> > > circumstances, but when you know it will be a tough landing/braking,
why
> > not
> > > use them if they will reduce braking distance by some ?
> >
> > Because they won't. Didn't you read what he wrote?
>
> Thrust reversers are pretty expensive and add weight to an engine. If they
> were so useless, they would not be added to planes. While it is true that
a TR
> may not provide the most of the braking and that brakes are more
efficient,
> what is so wrong with accepting that when your brakes are going to be
reduced
> due to slippery runway, that the added bnreakage from the TR would help ?
>
> Lets say that the TR gives to an added 10% braking force. If your runway
is
> 20% more slippery, and you land long and fast, heck, that 10% added
braking
> power from the TR might actually be necessary.
>
AllStar
Geoff Breach
> Of course they will. Do you think they're installed just to make
> noise? He said they wouldn't reduce the distance by as much as
> many people believe, not that they wouldn't reduce the braking
> distance.
... and...
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:38920D87...@vl.videotron.ca...
[...]
> Again, if TR were so useless, they would not be used at all and
> airframe/engine makers would not design these into the engines, saving
weight
> and complexity.
You know, I was chatting on the telephone just this morning
with a 5000+ hour commercial pilot. I asked him why he doesn't
appear on this newsgroup very often anymore.
He, like many others before him, has become disillusioned at
the way things work around here. He offers a bit of accurate
and informed advice, only to be shot down in flames by
legions of (inaccurate) armchair experts.
After this outburst from Rogers and Mezei, I can see exactly
where he is coming from.
I too was surprised at JB's assertion that thrust reverse isn't
all that effective in stopping an aeroplane but, you know what,
he drives big Boeings for a living, and I don't.
On my take, that suggests that he probably knows a bit more
about it than I do. It would be foolish of me to step in and
suggest that he was wrong.
Point made.
Geoff
Geoff Breach
news:h5ft68...@owl.breach.com.au...
> You know, I was chatting on the telephone just this morning
> with a 5000+ hour commercial pilot. I asked him why he doesn't
I crossposted that one to rec.travel.air and alt.travel.uk.air
unintentionally. That crosspost was possibly inappropriate.
My apologies (for the crosspost).
Regards,
Geoff
Richard C. Steiner
> He, like many others before him, has become disillusioned at
>the way things work around here. He offers a bit of accurate
>and informed advice, only to be shot down in flames by
>legions of (inaccurate) armchair experts.
>
> After this outburst from Rogers and Mezei, I can see exactly
>where he is coming from.
Did you know that Mark is currently a pilot who flies for a major?
That hardly makes him an "armchair expert". And I don't see his comments
as being anything close to "an outburst", either.
Methinks you exaggerate.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
Written online using slrn 0.9.5.4!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Phil C
the full report to arrive then postulate . The title of this thread too is
slightly offensive Qantas gets a lot very very right as do many other
airlines. David J if your watching what is the psychological reasoning
behind the propensity to hook into bad news but less posts on good news ?
Are we still that Neanderthal ?
Cheers but the debate is of interest . But please lets keep to facts and
physics . For example reverse thrust still produces forward thrust
albeit to a lesser degree) . what I mean is if the engine produces say
50000 lbs. thrust at max reverse will not use all that as a "reverse" try
about only 20 to 30 %
The other thing although a 4 engine machine sometimes it does not work and
as one poster said its too late to say Yikes! as tour already on the move
side ways ADD that knowledge to the poor buggers already hands full maybe
not a bad call if Murphy is already in the cockpit.
. The report I think will be required reading by many ( when it arrives )
P
--
http://members.tripod.com/~philcleaver/list.html
advantage id# iek-490
"Malcolm Weir" <ma...@cwix.com> wrote in message
news:94AAFDC332EF6BF4.67E45F5F...@lp.airnews.net...
He stated, explicitly:
>I understand why thurst reversers would not be needed under normal
>circumstances, but when you know it will be a tough landing/braking, why
not
>use them if they will reduce braking distance by some ?
Again, from John's post:
"They make bugger all difference to the braking distance".
In this context, "bugger all" is an anglo-saxon term meaning "very
little"...
Malc.
John Bartels
>
>
> John Bartels wrote:
> >
> > Read what I said guys. They don't make much difference, not they don't
do
> > anything. The standard allowance when they aren't present is 200 metres.
The
> > real difference is about 100 metres.
> >
> > NOW THE DRAWBACKS
> >
> > If the a/c is sliding they will take you off the side before you can say
> > 's**t'.
>
John Bartels
> OK, for the sake of preventing misunderstandings. Please answer with a YES
or
> NO so that no misinterpretation can be made. Since I am a really dumb
amrchair
> expert, I really need very simple answers so I can understand them.
>
> 1. does "bugger all" mean "very little " ?
Yes
>
> 2. Does "bugger all" mean "NONE AT ALL" (as someone else said) ?
No
>
> 3. Does IDDLE REVERSE provide any braking ?
No, it cancels the idle forward thrust.
>
> 4. does IDDLE REVERSE simply prepare engine in case it is needed to
reverse ?
Yes.
>
> 5. Does full reverse thrust provide any braking ?
Yes
>
> 6. Is it possible to have a device which provides braking, but not reduce
> braking distance ?
Yes.
But to understand this you have to look at the interplay between the brakes,
spoilers, automatic braking, and forward idle thrust.
And the item that you didn't ask about.
Can the use of reverse thrust make the a/c harder, or even impossible, to
control?
Yes
JB
JF Mezei
> > 6. Is it possible to have a device which provides braking, but not reduce
> > braking distance ?
> Yes.
> But to understand this you have to look at the interplay between the brakes,
> spoilers, automatic braking, and forward idle thrust.
Ok, but it was said that in the Qantas example, the engines were at iddle
reverse thrust which, you explained, cancels the forwards iddle thrust. So I
do not see why you are including that item in there.
Now, if you have automatic (anti-lock) brakes, and you have a surface which
allows only a certain deceleration due to being wet, how can reverse thurst
not add to the braking power and thus reduce braking distance ?
If that is the case, would the same logic also apply to spoilers and state
that spoilers do not reduce braking distance ? (both use the air to slow the
plane down, right ?)
Remember that in this specific case, we are talking about a landing on wet
surface requiring the shortest possible braking distance, not a "comfortable"
landing where you have the whole runway dry and plenty to decelerate slowly.
Erika
create such a mess.It would be quite logical to have x number of tickets for
x customers...oh
Graeme Hogan
JF Mezei wrote in message <389237ED...@vl.videotron.ca>...
>Geoff Breach wrote:
>All I said was that in a difficult braking situation, a pilot should
>instinctively use all the braking devioces at his disposal. This is
something
>which the Qantas pilots did not use.
>
>(I don't call putting engines at iddle reverse the use of all available
>braking resources).
Maybe he should have kicked in rudder on one side and drifted it
semi-sideways down the runway to help him pull up.
Just like a 747 pilot did many years ago at Sydney.
Melissa Torresan
<firstnamel...@accsoft.com.au> wrote:
> I too was surprised at JB's assertion that thrust reverse isn't
>all that effective in stopping an aeroplane
Me as well.. I mean isn't thrust reverse what makes all the noise when
the plane is landing? I live not far from the airport, and I *know*
when a plane lands because I hear that noise. So if it isn't useful,
perhaps they could stop using it, and we in this household could sleep
in :)
>but, you know what,
>he drives big Boeings for a living, and I don't.
Yep, you're 100% right there. So he would know what he is talking
about.. :)
> On my take, that suggests that he probably knows a bit more
>about it than I do. It would be foolish of me to step in and
>suggest that he was wrong.
>
> Point made.
Very true, and I am not going to suggest he is wrong.. I will suggest
he should tell all the other pilots, especially the bloke who flies in
that Qantas 767 at 5:05am here in ADL. Actually, maybe not such a good
idea.. cos it might make them noisier!
Mel
>Geoff
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------
Melissa Torresan
sm...@crosswinds.net
"I am serious, and don't call me Shirley!"
---------------------------------------------------
Tony Paton
>with a 5000+ hour commercial pilot. I asked him why he doesn't
>
>the way things work around here. He offers a bit of accurate
>and informed advice, only to be shot down in flames by
>legions of (inaccurate) armchair experts.
>
used BBS's to talk in Fido.Aviation (something like that). Those were
the days where everyone was friendly, now as any number of idiots can
access the internet without any basic knowledge and all that want to
do is be the number one supposed know all. Well.....
I wonder if there are any BBS stil in existence?
\
------------ >-==- TONY PATON to...@tpg.com.au
/
Jackson Harding
>
> Read what I said guys. They don't make much difference, not they don't do
> anything. The standard allowance when they aren't present is 200 metres. The
> real difference is about 100 metres.
>
> NOW THE DRAWBACKS
>
> If the a/c is sliding they will take you off the side before you can say
> 's**t'.
>
>
From the CVR transcripts I've seen, it's more likely to be f**k :-)
Jackson
--
==========================================================
Jackson & Jo Harding
email: jaxs...@camtech.net.au
mobile: 0412 793 587 (Jackson)
mobile: 0412 172 372 (Jo)
fax: (08) 8278 4443
==========================================================
Deborah Stevenson
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Geoff Breach wrote:
> Mark Rogers <mmro...@tcsn.net> wrote in message
> news:3891E1E7...@tcsn.net...
> > Of course they will. Do you think they're installed just to make
> > noise? He said they wouldn't reduce the distance by as much as
> > many people believe, not that they wouldn't reduce the braking
> > distance.
[snip]
> You know, I was chatting on the telephone just this morning
> with a 5000+ hour commercial pilot. I asked him why he doesn't
> appear on this newsgroup very often anymore.
>
> He, like many others before him, has become disillusioned at
> the way things work around here. He offers a bit of accurate
> and informed advice, only to be shot down in flames by
> legions of (inaccurate) armchair experts.
>
> After this outburst from Rogers and Mezei, I can see exactly
> where he is coming from.
Kind of true about people commenting on other Usenet posters, too :-). I
think an "Oops" is in order about now.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Hugh Colton
>
>3. Does IDDLE REVERSE provide any braking ?
>
>4. does IDDLE REVERSE simply prepare engine in case it is needed to reverse
?
>
>5. Does full reverse thrust provide any braking ?
>
Mark Rogers
Trevor Fenn wrote:
>
> mmro...@tcsn.net (Mark Rogers) wrote in <38923784...@tcsn.net>:
>
> >True. If the aircraft is hydroplaning (without a loss of
> >direction control), however, they can be useful in placing the
> >aircraft more firmly on the ground and aiding in braking
> >effectiveness.
> >
> >For example, the Lufthansa A320 accident in Warsaw was the result
> >of hydroplaning and running off the end of the runway. The A320
> >does not allow the selection of reverse thrust without squat
> >switch activation (which was delayed in this case by
> >hydroplaning). If the aircraft had been a 737, reverse thrust
> >would have been available (within 10 feet RA), and it's likely
> >that braking effectiveness would have been improved enough to
> >make a difference.
> >
> >--Mark Rogers
>
> I'm curious about the remark that hydroplaning prevents squat switch
> activation. Weight on the wheels activates squat switches not wheel
> rotational speed.
>
I'm sorry, I was not very clear in describing what I meant. The
A320 did not allow reverse thrust, braking, or ground spoiler
deployment until both main gear squat switches had activated (it
has subsequently been modified to provide 10 degrees of ground
spoiler deployment with the compression of one landing gear).
The Lufthansa A320 touched down on the right main landing gear,
and began to hydroplane. None of the deceleration devices were
available until the left main gear also touched down, some time
later, at which point the aircraft could no longer be stopped on
the remaining runway. If reverse thrust had been available (as
it would have been on the 737, within 10 feet RA of the ground),
both main gear would have immediately been brought onto the
runway, allowing braking and ground spoiler deployment.
--Mark Rogers
Sandy
As discussed, idle reverse simply counteracts the idle forward thrust and leaves
the reverse available should it suddenly be required. Its use in landing is really
to save the brakes as reverse is quite effective at high speeds and where
autobrake is selected, any retardation provided by the reverse reduces the
autobrake input while the selected deceleration is being achieved. The B747-438 QF
decision to use idle reverse due to the characteristic of carbon brakes giving
less wear if hot vs. attenuated is now very well publicised.
> Now, if you have automatic (anti-lock) brakes, and you have a surface which
> allows only a certain deceleration due to being wet, how can reverse thurst
> not add to the braking power and thus reduce braking distance ?
Perfectly logical and correct. The original argument for selecting autobrake for
all landings [it was not always mandatory] was that if you had a problem selecting
reverse, the autobrake would be doing the job for you while you solved the
conundrum. [A bit more background; the B747 series aren't certified with
asymmetric revese usage, unlike the twins. If one engine doesn't go into reverse,
or indeed a pair due to a logic card failure, then you have to sort out the
symmetrical pair and apply reverse on those. Quicker to do than write, but it
takes time and the autobrake can be working for you while you think.]
However, if we introduce a hypothetical situation here with a contaminated runway,
where, say, one side of the runway is wet and the other dry, braking other than
mild will have the effect of swinging the a/c from side to side due to obtaining
full braking on the dry side [or, at least, braking without any anti-skid
intervention] while the anti-skid on the 'wet' side works its little heart out
preventing the wheels from locking. If you then interpose full reverse on top of
this, you're likely to lose the a/c off the side of the runway. Equally, backing
off on the brakes and allowing reverse alone to do the job won't pull the a/c up
in a limiting situation. Purely hypothetical, of course!
> If that is the case, would the same logic also apply to spoilers and state
> that spoilers do not reduce braking distance ? (both use the air to slow the
> plane down, right ?)
>
> Remember that in this specific case, we are talking about a landing on wet
> surface requiring the shortest possible braking distance, not a "comfortable"
> landing where you have the whole runway dry and plenty to decelerate slowly.
There certainly would be some braking effect from the aerodynamic interverence
from the spoilers. However, their main contribution to retardation is to kill lift
on the wing and allow effective braking with the a/c weight fully on the wheels.
Hope this helps a bit.
Cheers
Sandy
DISCLAIMER: the views expressed above are my own and do not reflect the position
of my employer.
--
Sandy Howard
Sydney, Australia
Reply to: san...@hartingdale.com.au
Sandy
Sandy
Rod Speed
Tony Paton <to...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:AeSSOOvG4IXnrQ...@4ax.com...
> Geoff Breach wrote
>> You know, I was chatting on the telephone just this morning
>> with a 5000+ hour commercial pilot. I asked him why he
>> doesn't appear on this newsgroup very often anymore.
All public forums are always like that, there are always some
who it doesnt appeal to and plenty who just cant find the time.
Usenet has always appealed to only a small subset of the net.
>> He, like many others before him, has become disillusioned
>> at the way things work around here. He offers a bit of
>> accurate and informed advice, only to be shot down in
>> flames by legions of (inaccurate) armchair experts.
Turns out you're going off halfcocked on the 'armchair
experts' some of whom turn out to be nothing of the sort.
Your [Breach] pathetic attempts to bluster you way out of
that spectacular footshot fooled absolutely no one at all.
> Oh for the days before the Internet and only a small band of
> people used BBS's to talk in Fido.Aviation (something like that).
> Those were the days where everyone was friendly,
Not a clue to your name. It wasnt called FightoNet for nuffin.
Talk about a rose tinted glasses view of the past.
> now as any number of idiots can access the internet
> without any basic knowledge and all that want to
> do is be the number one supposed know all. Well.....
> I wonder if there are any BBS stil in existence?
There are still a tiny handful, including even
fidonet. SFA bother with it anymore tho.
Trevor Fenn
>True. If the aircraft is hydroplaning (without a loss of
>direction control), however, they can be useful in placing the
>aircraft more firmly on the ground and aiding in braking
>effectiveness.
>
>For example, the Lufthansa A320 accident in Warsaw was the result
>of hydroplaning and running off the end of the runway. The A320
>does not allow the selection of reverse thrust without squat
>switch activation (which was delayed in this case by
>hydroplaning). If the aircraft had been a 737, reverse thrust
>would have been available (within 10 feet RA), and it's likely
>that braking effectiveness would have been improved enough to
>make a difference.
>
>--Mark Rogers
I'm curious about the remark that hydroplaning prevents squat switch
activation. Weight on the wheels activates squat switches not wheel
rotational speed.
Trevor Fenn
jacko
"Hugh Colton" <hugh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Is IDDLE also an Anglo-Saxon word, or do you mean "idle"?
>
the aircraft carrying supplies to the besieged garrison at Fort Spon?
John Bartels
JB
"Paul Saccani" <sac...@pc.jaring.my> wrote in message
news:ffov8s0rch4f10oq7...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:06:47 -0600, "Hugh Colton"
> <hugh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Is IDDLE also an Anglo-Saxon word, or do you mean "idle"?
>
>
> He speaks french for goodness sake!
> Cheers,
>
> Paul Saccani
>
> Bang Na,
> Bangkok,
> Thailand
AllStar
Justin Chiew
"Martin Taylor" <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote in message
news:0000...@net-tech.com.au...
> JB made a good point about the lack of coverage Ansett got over its
> strike down Tassie way recently. Why target one airline and ignore the
> other. They both should be shot down!!
I think there is a difference in terms of the issue at hand. Qantas is
renowned for safety, and knocking the airline for its safety will sell more
papers.
People will just frown on the unions having a whinge about some baggage
dispute - ahh, nothing that interesting, unions over here in Melbourne were
having a good sook about 36hr weeks etc.
That coverage really woudln't acheive anything, given that the public is
unlikely to sympathise with the unions.
> MJT
Cheers,
Justin
Ted Harrison
"Paul Saccani" <sac...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:
>
> Right you are. The aircraft landed gently, and was programmed so that
> all switches would have to be on to allow spoiler and reverse thrust
> to be used, irregardles of pilot selected position. From the FDR, one
> switch on the upwind side was not activated.
>
Which incident was this, Paul?
Ted Harrison
"Tony Paton" <to...@tpg.com.au> wrote
> >
> Oh for the days before the Internet and only a small band of people
> used BBS's to talk in Fido.Aviation (something like that). Those were
> the days where everyone was friendly,
<CHOKE___SPLUTTER____COUGH)
<GRIN>
You off the floor yet, Jackson, Simon ??
Ted Harrison
Phil C
Here is a non spon thing that may interest and help .
I post here as your X post saves me a lot of key strokes
http://philcleaver.tripod.com/poll.html
^^^^^^ up there see it ? :)
--
http://members.tripod.com/~philcleaver/list.html
advantage id# iek-490
"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:870noq$8uq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
In article <86uvmd$9lg$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Hugh Colton" <hugh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Is IDDLE also an Anglo-Saxon word, or do you mean "idle"?
>
Ashley Wright
wrote:
>It simply amzing that an organisation with Qantas's supossed reputation can
>create such a mess.It would be quite logical to have x number of tickets for
>x customers...oh
The problem came about because this year the Tennis had an EXTRA
session on the last Thursday night. In previous years a four day
finals package included the final four days, however somone clearly
overlooked the extra night which required a seperate ticket. So not
quite a case of x nimber of tickets for x number of customers.
As for the carry on of the people, I can understand their
disapointment as I too would have liked to have been there (I had only
had tickets for the last Friday and Saturday). But seriously anyone
listening to them would have thought the got no tickets to any of the
tennis thus their spoilt holiday, an secondly they brought them
knowing that Andre and Pete were going to be playing! It would be
interesting to see the wording of the holiday packages. (PS. I didn't
have a Qantas package, I brought my tickets and flights seperatly)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Wright, Canberra, Australia ajwr...@nospam.ozemail.com.au
www: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ajwright Do not reply to my email. Delete word 'Spam'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Weir
<jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> caused to appear as if it was written:
>Now, if you have automatic (anti-lock) brakes, and you have a surface which
>allows only a certain deceleration due to being wet, how can reverse thurst
>not add to the braking power and thus reduce braking distance ?
Sliding sideways off the runway may reduce braking distance, but is hardly
what you want...
>If that is the case, would the same logic also apply to spoilers and state
>that spoilers do not reduce braking distance ? (both use the air to slow the
>plane down, right ?)
Ummm... spoilers reduce lift, putting the aircraft more firmly on the
ground. The more weight you have on the wheels, the better the wheel brakes
work. But spoilers don't do much for braking on their own...
>Remember that in this specific case, we are talking about a landing on wet
>surface requiring the shortest possible braking distance, not a "comfortable"
>landing where you have the whole runway dry and plenty to decelerate slowly.
Why "shortest possible"? Surely "shortest *reasonable*" is a better
appelation, since the runway is there to be used...
Malc.
Martin Taylor
TP> Oh for the days before the Internet and only a small band of people
TP> used BBS's to talk in Fido.Aviation (something like that). Those were
TP> the days where everyone was friendly, now as any number of idiots can
TP> access the internet without any basic knowledge and all that want to
TP> do is be the number one supposed know all. Well.....
TP> I wonder if there are any BBS stil in existence?
Fidonet still functions. How many active nodes there are, I don't know.
In late 1997, there were 700 odd BBSes running in Oz that were listed.
This is compared to around 1200 BBSes at their peak.
Fidonet, while an efficient store and forward based network could get
itself involved in politics, personality conflicts which often affected
how the network functioned (it is an amateur system ran by volunteers
who, more often than not, paid for it out of their own pockets).
Echos (newsgroups to non-BBS people) were all moderated, so flame wars,
off-topic threads etc. were kept to a minimum The biggest bonus, I
s'pose was that there was NO spam.
However, it didn't have the reach, nor the variety that Usenet offers.
It also was slow, taking up to a week for messages to do the entire
round of participating systems.
I don't recall the aviation based echoes, nor what their quality of
content was. Suffice it to say, I doubt that it has the reach that
aus.aviation does, given the people who frequent here.
.. To vacillate or not to vacillate, that is the question. Or is it?
MJT
---------------
Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply
Gippsland, Victoria, Australia
Jock
<john_b...@nojunk.hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The reversers are a bit of a furphy. They make bugger all difference to the
>braking distance, so I doubt their deployment or not would have made any
>difference. And, the QF procedure is to use the brakes, AND idle reverse.
I happened to be spinning some numbers out of the performance section
of the book just the other day.
Full reverse (with manual braking) can reduce your Landing Distance by
between 6% to 10%. That would equate to about the distance JB had
mentioned further down the thread. I can say it in feet though - 700
of them. Of course the faster you are going the more effective they
are.
The BASI interim report said (quote) "The engine thrust reversers were
not deployed".
I would take that to mean not even Reverse Idle selected.
JB says further:
>The runway involved is prone to flooding, and the locals aren't inclined
>towards telling you about it. I landed there a couple of years ago, and it
>was very, very wet. When we told the tower that there was in the order of 3
>inches of water over the touchdown zone, they didn't bother passing that
>info on to anyone else. We made a broadcast on the tower frequency......so
>at least some of the a/c on the way in found out.
You are suggesting (quite possibly) the runway may have been
contaminated and should have been classified as "Water" rather than
just "Wet" for QF1's landing.
I understood Qantas policy was a Flaps 30 landing for a contaminated
runway - QF1 used Flaps 25.
cheers
--
Jock
t...@tig.com.au
HERD J D
: On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:49:23 +1100, "Erika" <tor...@myrealbox.com>
: wrote:
:
: >It simply amzing that an organisation with Qantas's supossed reputation can
: >create such a mess.It would be quite logical to have x number of tickets for
: >x customers...oh
:
:
: The problem came about because this year the Tennis had an EXTRA
: session on the last Thursday night. In previous years a four day
: finals package included the final four days, however somone clearly
: overlooked the extra night which required a seperate ticket. So not
: quite a case of x nimber of tickets for x number of customers.
Let me just slip my marketeer hat onhere for a second...
The problem should not have occured because Qantas should have known the
dates and times of matches.
That is what one factor of marketing is about. Find out what the punter
wants and if within resources, solve that punters problem.
These Qantas folk goofed big.
They "assumed" instead of making a phone call. damn woeful.
The rest of post was ok by me.
`--
Cheers,
Herdy.
he...@startrekmail.com
http://u2.newcastle.edu.au/~mgjdh
Ashley Wright
wrote:
>
>Let me just slip my marketeer hat onhere for a second...
>
>The problem should not have occured because Qantas should have known the
>dates and times of matches.
>
>That is what one factor of marketing is about. Find out what the punter
>wants and if within resources, solve that punters problem.
Certainly no problem, Qantas did stuff up and should not have. Just
pointing out to the poster the problem wasn't they didn't buy enough
tickets, just they didn't buy any at all for these packages!
RT
John Bartels <john_b...@nojunk.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Read what I said guys. They don't make much difference, not they don't do
> anything. The standard allowance when they aren't present is 200 metres.
The
> real difference is about 100 metres.
>
> NOW THE DRAWBACKS
>
> If the a/c is sliding they will take you off the side before you can say
> 's**t'.
Aaah - thanks. Was wondering why only *idle* reverse :-)
Ted Harrison
"Martin Taylor" <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
>
> Fidonet still functions.
<snip>
> Echos (newsgroups to non-BBS people) were all moderated, so flame wars,
> off-topic threads etc. were kept to a minimum
This should amuse Jackson Harding, Simon Blears and any
other ex-Fidonet sysop who hasn't revealed himself here.
The majority of echos were NOT moderated. And I know. I distributed
every one of them. More than 3,000.
And, as Rod Speed has pointed out, it wasn't nick-named Fight-o-net
for nothing.
> It also was slow, taking up to a week for messages to do the entire
> round of participating systems.
It was as slow or fast as individual system operators wanted it to be.
When I stopped being one of the volunteers who moved the mail,
echomail replies were coming back to my system from the US same day,
sometimes in less than an hour.
>
> I don't recall the aviation based echoes, nor what their quality of
> content was. Suffice it to say, I doubt that it has the reach that
> aus.aviation does, given the people who frequent here.
>
The Fidonet "aviation" echo left this one for dead.
Someone posted something inaccurate about Edwards AFB, for example -- and was
likely to get two or three people who had flown serious hardware there
shoot you down in flames.
Most of the direction for the aviation echo came from a very prim and proper
retired USAF colonel bombardier, Jim Sanders, who served in every bomber from
B17 to B52.
Mark Rogers
Malcolm Weir wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 00:55:02 -0500, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> caused to appear as if it was written:
>
> >Now, if you have automatic (anti-lock) brakes, and you have a surface which
> >allows only a certain deceleration due to being wet, how can reverse thurst
> >not add to the braking power and thus reduce braking distance ?
>
> Sliding sideways off the runway may reduce braking distance, but is hardly
> what you want...
True, but reverse thrust can also be extremely useful. Less than
a week ago, we landed in heavy snow, and a contaminated runway
(snow). The braking action on the runway was poor, and reverse
thrust was extremely useful in slowing the aircraft. It's true
that reverse thrust can sometime create some directional control
problems, but those are the exception, and it's fairly easy to
come back out of reverse and regain control.
> >If that is the case, would the same logic also apply to spoilers and state
> >that spoilers do not reduce braking distance ? (both use the air to slow the
> >plane down, right ?)
>
> Ummm... spoilers reduce lift, putting the aircraft more firmly on the
> ground. The more weight you have on the wheels, the better the wheel brakes
> work. But spoilers don't do much for braking on their own...
They actually provide some significant aerodynamic braking not
related to putting the weight on the wheels. It's quite
noticeable during landing if the spoilers don't deploy (if
they're deferred, etc.). This doesn't have anything to do with
braking effectiveness, as the difference is noticeable on
landings where braking is not used at all until the turnoff
point. If the automatic deployment function is not operable on
the 737-300, for instance, the allowable runway landing limit
weight is reduced by nearly ten thousand pounds (and the spoilers
would still be manually deployed after a few seconds).
--Mark Rogers
Martin Taylor
TH> The majority of echos were NOT moderated. And I know. I distributed
TH> every one of them. More than 3,000.
I stand corrected, then. The echoes that I was involved with were
moderated, however.
TH> And, as Rod Speed has pointed out, it wasn't nick-named Fight-o-net
TH> for nothing.
That's ironic. Actually, my memory is playing trix on me. The last big
bunfight that I was watching, in a SYSOP echo no less, involved a couple
of SYSOPs, the banishment from the network of one, because of the
allegedly obnoxious behavior of one of his downlinks, and who just
happens to be present here in aus.aviation.
TH> Someone posted something inaccurate about Edwards AFB, for example --
TH> and was likely to get two or three people who had flown serious
TH> hardware there shoot you down in flames.
And that doesn't happen here?
.. The problem with the gene pool is there is no lifeguard.
Malcolm Miles
>Oh for the days before the Internet and only a small band of people
>used BBS's to talk in Fido.Aviation (something like that). Those were
>the days where everyone was friendly, now as any number of idiots can
>access the internet without any basic knowledge and all that want to
>do is be the number one supposed know all. Well.....
>I wonder if there are any BBS stil in existence?
Still about two hundred or so in Australia and NZ. The Aviation echo
is still popular, about 100 messages a month. You can read many
Fidonet echos using your newsreader at news://news.tardis.net. I don't
think the Aviation echo is currently fed to the news server but if
anyone is interested drop me a line and I will set it up.
Best wishes,
Malcolm
Sysop Tardis BBS 3:633/260
--
Best wishes,
Malcolm
Ted Harrison
"Martin Taylor" <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
> TH> it wasn't nick-named Fight-o-net for nothing.
>
> That's ironic. Actually, my memory is playing trix on me. The last big
> bunfight that I was watching, in a SYSOP echo no less, involved a couple
> of SYSOPs, the banishment from the network of one, because of the
> allegedly obnoxious behavior of one of his downlinks,
No. Not correct either.
The system operator you're referring to was suspended because of his own attacks
on other sysops over Fidonet technical standards.
The user you're talking about didn't even figure in the ruckus.
And, pardon my memory, but I don't recall you being in the nodelist.
Were you?
>
> TH> Someone posted something inaccurate about Edwards AFB, for example --
> TH> and was likely to get two or three people who had flown serious
> TH> hardware there shoot you down in flames.
>
> And that doesn't happen here?
>
>
I did say serious hardware and I did say Edwards.
<GRIN>
Cheers
Martin Taylor
TH> No. Not correct either.
TH> The system operator you're referring to was suspended because of his
TH> own attacks on other sysops over Fidonet technical standards.
That may have been another issue. It's been a while.
TH> The user you're talking about didn't even figure in the ruckus.
In this particular case, the user, a point, actually, was causing some
strife in the echoes, and complaints were sent to his bossnode, who
ignored them. As a result, someone, in a position of 'authority',
disconnected him. At least, that's how I recall it.
TH> And, pardon my memory, but I don't recall you being in the nodelist.
TH> Were you?
Yes. In two nets. Net632 for a while, then I went to Net633 due to a
restructure of the Melbourne nets. I was in Fidonet from 1988 to 1996,
with a short hiatus in between.
I s'pose being a remote node, I didn't attract much attention.
.. 2 monograms = 1 diagram
MJT
Ted Harrison
"Martin Taylor" <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
> TH> The system operator you're referring to was suspended because of his
> TH> own attacks on other sysops over Fidonet technical standards.
>
> That may have been another issue. It's been a while.
>
The bottom line is this:
I was involved. You were not.
Nobody was ever ex-communicated or suspended from Fidonet
because of anything Rod Speed ever did, so let's nip that in the bud
right now.
You made two statements about Fidonet.
Both were wrong.
No ifs or buts.
And this is off-topic, so this is where I leave it.
Martin Taylor
TH> Nobody was ever ex-communicated or suspended from Fidonet
TH> because of anything Rod Speed ever did, so let's nip that in the bud
TH> right now.
I didn't mention him as being the cause of someone's suspension from
Fidonet. So why did you?
Rod Speed
>> Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
>>> Ted Harrison said..
>> Nobody was ever ex-communicated or suspended
>> from Fidonet because of anything Rod Speed ever
>> did, so let's nip that in the bud right now.
> I didn't mention him as being the cause of someone's suspension from Fidonet.
More of your childish lying.
Here's what you actually said.
>>>> And, as Rod Speed has pointed out, it
>>>> wasn't nick-named Fight-o-net for nothing.
>>> That's ironic. Actually, my memory is playing trix on me. The
>>> last big bunfight that I was watching, in a SYSOP echo no less,
>>> involved a couple of SYSOPs, the banishment from the network
>>> of one, because of the allegedly obnoxious behavior of one of his
>>> downlinks, and who just happens to be present here in aus.aviation.
Thats another one of your lies, and you clearly dont have the
balls to admit that you mangled that claim you made there utterly.
> So why did you?
He corrected you error Taylor. As you know full well.
Keep squirming.
HERD J D
I read martin's post as quoted by you and I can't see where he says you
were the trouble. he just said that it was someone in this ng.
Your response and style are totally childish.
methinks you, Speed, are the liar here.
Rod Speed
HERD J D <mg...@u2.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in
message news:87qlsr$odl$2...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> Rod Speed (rod_...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> I read martin's post as quoted by you and I
> can't see where he says you were the trouble.
Your comprehension problems are your problem Turd.
Martin, Ted and I are well aware of who he was referring to with
his slimy 'because of the allegedly obnoxious behavior of one of his
downlinks, and who just happens to be present here in aus.aviation'
> he just said that it was someone in this ng.
Wrong. Again. As usual with you.
Rest of your puerile posturing flushed where it belongs.
HERD J D
:
: HERD J D <mg...@u2.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in
: message news:87qlsr$odl$2...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
: > Rod Speed (rod_...@yahoo.com) wrote:
:
: > I read martin's post as quoted by you and I
: > can't see where he says you were the trouble.
:
: Your comprehension problems are your problem Turd.
That was really original. can't argue so you insult. You are
childish.
: Martin, Ted and I are well aware of who he was referring to with
: his slimy 'because of the allegedly obnoxious behavior of one of his
: downlinks, and who just happens to be present here in aus.aviation'
:
Yes, but no one else was, so you dobbed your stupid self in. agian.
: > he just said that it was someone in this ng.
:
: Wrong. Again. As usual with you.
:
:
Wrong. You can't argue so you insult. You are childish.
Rest of your puerile posturing flushed where it belongs.
:
Usual bullshit from you. You can't raise an arguement, so you insult.
You are childish.
Rod Speed
Some turd claiming to be TURD J D <mg...@u2.newcastle.edu.au>
wrote in message news:87sun8$sl$4...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
absolutely nothing but more puerile derivative raving.
Flushed where appropriate for a turd.
Martin Taylor
>> Nobody was ever ex-communicated or suspended
>> from Fidonet because of anything Rod Speed ever
>> did, so let's nip that in the bud right now.
> I didn't mention him as being the cause of someone's suspension from
Fidonet.
RS> More of your childish lying.
RS> Here's what you actually said.
You're not doing yourself any favors. If you decide to READ what I said,
not once did I mention any names.
Point out WHERE I said your name or anyone else's for that matter.
Me squirming. Cringing, more likely, as you continue to make a fool of
yourself.
Methinks that senility for you, is closer than you think.
.. Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether.
HERD J D
:
:
--------------
Bwahahahahahahaha! he doesn't get it!! Bwahahahahaha!
Ted Harrison
"Martin Taylor" <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
>
> >> Nobody was ever ex-communicated or suspended
> >> from Fidonet because of anything Rod Speed ever
> >> did, so let's nip that in the bud right now.
>
> > I didn't mention him as being the cause of someone's suspension from
> Fidonet.
>
Martin, I said that this was off-topic and I'd therefore leave it.
But your evasiveness might just be a "cry for help".
<GRIN>
So let's see whether this can help you:
Who were you directing your snide and false comment against,
if it was NOT Rod Speed?
Who else, in this newsgroup, fits the bill?
Who else in this newsgroup, did you INTEND to be identified as
the person you were lying about?
Ted Harrison
This might refresh your candour:
And perhaps you might explain the significance of the word "ironic"
if you were not referring to Rod Speed, who is mentioned in the
sentence you are responding to.
"Martin Taylor" <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote in message
news:0000...@net-tech.com.au...
> Ted Harrison said..
>
> TH> And, as Rod Speed has pointed out, it wasn't nick-named Fight-o-net
> TH> for nothing.
>
> That's ironic. Actually, my memory is playing trix on me. The last big
> bunfight that I was watching, in a SYSOP echo no less, involved a couple
> of SYSOPs, the banishment from the network of one, because of the
> allegedly obnoxious behavior of one of his downlinks, and who just
> happens to be present here in aus.aviation.
Rod Speed
>> Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
>>> Ted Harrison wrote
>>>> Nobody was ever ex-communicated or suspended
>>>> from Fidonet because of anything Rod Speed ever
>>>> did, so let's nip that in the bud right now.
>>> I didn't mention him as being the cause
>>> of someone's suspension from Fidonet.
>> More of your childish lying.
>> Here's what you actually said.
> You're not doing yourself any favors.
Neither are you when your childish lying
is so completely trivial to expose Taylor.
> If you decide to READ what I said, not once did I mention any names.
Yep, you chose to slimily allude to me instead. Knowing
full well that we would know who you were referring to.
> Point out WHERE I said your name or anyone else's for that matter.
Point out WHERE you actually said NAME up till now.
Squirm all you like Taylor, you're fooling absolutely no one at all. As always.
Thanks for yet more proof that you never ever have the balls to
admit to a single complete and utterly mangling you have done.
Keep digging, little boy.
Peter Kerwin
> "Tony Paton" <to...@tpg.com.au> wrote
> > Oh for the days before the Internet and only a small band of people
> > used BBS's to talk in Fido.Aviation (something like that). Those were
> > the days where everyone was friendly,
>
> <CHOKE___SPLUTTER____COUGH)
>
> <GRIN>
>
> You off the floor yet, Jackson, Simon ??
That's where and when I first encountered 'Bob Fast'.
Say no more :)
HERD J D
:
At no point, shit for brains, did he mention YOUR NAME. Only those
involved knew who he was on about.
YOU dobbed yourself in, no one else.
Thanks to you, one can assume it was you causing all the trouble.
Doesn't surprise me, ya childish git.
Rod Speed
TURD J D <mg...@u2.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message news:887jgt$38m$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> Rod Speed (rod_...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> At no point, shit for brains, did he mention YOUR NAME.
At no point did anyone, including him, say anything about
using a specific name until long after the childish lying.
Reams of your quite remarkably puerile shit flushed where it belongs. Again.