I don’t know how true this is, but I read on another board that Aloha found the 737NG unsuitable for short hops between islands. Something about the high bypass engines not having time to cool down during cruise, but the low bypass engines on the 200 could handle it. So they kept the 200s around for interisland flights, and their NGs were relegated to flights to and from the mainland.
I was wondering what on what kind of USAF aircraft he flew:
I saw an article recently (I think it was about the end of the 747) that included a picture like this:
The caption said it was the old United livery. I actually remember the livery before that one.
Most major airlines now have at least one plane each painted in at least some of their earlier liveries as tributes / mementos.
I know UAL has at least one jet done in what I think of as their classic Jet Age livery; I’ve seen it in person:
Here’s a photoshop job somebody did of a current-fleet 787 as it would look if it were painted in each of their historical liveries. I can’t vouch for the historical accuracy of this roster, but I recognize most of those. Though frankly I’m surprised at quite how many there were. More IMO than most other current major US carriers had over the same period.
I like some of the historic paint jobs. I don’t think I’ve seen any of them in person, except back when they were still the current livery.
Those four stars along the bottom of the fin; I thought that was only on the DC-10. The stars were along the center engine. It doesn’t look right on an A320.
It’s interesting to see how the paint schemes have changed over the decades. I can kinda spot trends, but I’m not sure I could describe them.
Here’s a cite/site with some good info on UAL livery history
Also here
Between these two sites we see a 747 with the stars and a DC-10 without. I conclude the stars were not DC-10 specific. I don’t call seeing or not seeing them on UAL narrowbodies, but that era was kind of a low-spot in my involvement with commercial aviation. Note also that that livery only ran for two years; good bet they repainted rather few airplanes with it and most (all?) of the wedge+stars airplanes were new factory deliveries during that short couple of years.
An obvious challenge with our online searching is that all photos of those liveries when they were current were taken with film cameras. Of which only a tiny percentage have ever been converted to electronic images, much less are posted where Google can find them.
I’ve heard the current trend in airline liveries called the “generic meaningless swoosh thing”.
Yeah. Arty but not artistic.
Returning to @Robot_Arm’s topic, I just learned that “retrojet” is a common slang term for the historic livery paintjobs. A Google image search for that term produces a lot of interesting examples. And of course a bunch of simulator app fakes.
General Aviation post:
Cellphone video from the scene showed the plane slowly descending toward the shoreline before slamming into the sand and water, flipping over and settling upside down.
According to the flight recording, the pilot originally planned to fly to Malibu but began experiencing engine trouble near the Pacific Palisades.
The pilot attempted to return to Santa Monica Airport but was forced to make an emergency landing on the shoreline near the pier.
This is not a new story (it’s from 2004) and many aviation fans have probably already seen it, but I happened to come across it a second time earlier and it struck me as such a powerful object lesson. Two young pilots – and I emphasize “young” – who were nevertheless supposed to be professional airline pilots managed to crash a CRJ-200 and kill themselves through sheer unbridled stupidity. I guess it shows that youth will triumph over wisdom a lot of times.
They thought they could just have some fun because it was a repositioning flight with no passengers, and treat the jet like a fun sports car. They were supposed to fly it from Little Rock to Minneapolis. First they put it through outrageous rates of climb, just for fun. Then they took it to its absolute maximum ceiling of 41,000 ft. Where it stalled, and dropped like a rock. During the course of trying to recover from the stall, they managed to flame out both engines. They failed to restart them, both because they never achieved the necessary speed for a windmill start, and also because both engines had core-locked and were not restartable with APU power, either. Those versions of the General Electric CF34 were subject to core lock if they suddenly shut down at high temperatures, and would stay that way until they cooled. And finally, they didn’t act on four separate emergency diversion opportunities until it was too late to reach any of them.
Unbelievable irresponsibility in a pair that was supposed to have been trained as professional airline pilots.
I couldn’t tell by the grainy video but it looked like the pilot of the Cessna was forced to drop the plane because the people on the beach didn’t move. That forced the nose gear to dig in and flip the plane. The story said they were trapped which means the doors probably jammed in the frame on impact. Cardinal rule of an emergency landing is to open a door before impact to avoid this and I’ve explained it many times to passengers on preflight.
I remember the CRJ crash but forgot or didn’t hear about the engines locking up. They had a long and terrifying descent to their death for no good reason. I’m really not sure how you instill a healthy respect of things that can go wrong with even the simplest aircraft.
It’s hard to say. I did see two people (an adult and a small child) who were pretty close. But if the pilot had landed parallel to the beach instead of at an angle (and uphill), the results may have been better. It also looks like there was no attempt to keep the nose wheel up, and there were no flaps.
I agree with the doors. Dad used to say to open the door and jam a shoe into the hinge side. I always thought, why not just open it and then lock it? (For those who don’t know, locking a Cessna door is like throwing a deadbolt.)
A fixed-gear airplane, and especially a high wing fixed-gear airplane landing in soft dry sand will flip nearly every time. The way to make a seaside / lakeside landing is to land parallel to the water’s edge on the wet relatively hard sand just above the water, or to land in the couple inches deep water right where the waves end. Touchdown in dry sand or 2+ foot deep water is a nose-over almost every time. Obviously the flatter the shore slope and having some, but not much, wave action is the best environment for success with this plan.
Unrelated to the above, it’s nice to try to avoid bystanders. It’s not smart to commit suicide while doing so.
Here’s the always excellent write up from Admiral Cloudberg: The Four One Zero Club: The crash of Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701 | by Admiral Cloudberg | Medium
In addition to the errors already mentioned in this thread, it appears the pilots panicked and failed to use the correct emergency checklist - had they done so, they probably would have been able to restart at least one of the engines and continue the flight without further incident. It seems they suffered from a severe lack of good air manship that permanently removed them from the pilot pool.
It’s possible, although the several different videos I’ve seen suggest that both engines were core-locked. However, the #2 engine was definitely seriously overheated and since those engines were subject to core lock under those conditions, it definitely would have been affected.
Excellent writeup, though, thanks for posting.
I wonder if this was a typo in the article: the resultant rate of climb was not allowed to be less than 300 feet per minute, or the plane would have to be leveled off.
I would think it should have said not to be GREATER than 300 feet per minute.
I actually get the desire to push the plane a bit and it could have been a training session for the FO but that’s not what happened.
Not an aviator, so I will defer to those who are, but I took this to mean that you can only continue to climb if conditions are sufficiently favourable to achieve a climb rate greater than 300ft/min - because if not, you’re at risk of overworking the engines exactly as these 2 pilots did.
Regarding core lock, I haven’t reread the article, but my understanding was that after both engines flamed out, had they immediately put the plane in a dive fast enough to keep the turbines rotating, they could have avoided core lock.
I’m not sure what they’re meaning there either. It could be an ATC minimum climb rate requirement or they might be talking about the ceiling for a particular weight of the aircraft, ie if it can’t maintain 300 fpm at 250 knots then it has reached its ceiling for its weight and must be levelled off. I don’t know, just speculating. The accident report is no doubt clearer.
One thing is for sure, climbing in vertical speed mode at high altitude is a big no-no. Climbing an an airspeed hold mode is far safer. They have various different names in different aircraft but the basic concept is that the autopilot pitches to maintain an airspeed and thrust is kept at the climb rating. Excess thrust causes the autopilot to need to pitch up to keep the selected airspeed and thus the aircraft climbs. If the aircraft gets high enough that there is little excess thrust, it will level off still maintaining the set speed.
Wouldn’t there be a light or sound warning of the engines exceeding their EGT range? One of the articles said they were in the process of melting the turbine blades.
And wouldn’t the engines have a FADEC system that prevented or limited a meltdown?