| |
| Welcome |
This is RAILBASTARD
You're looking at our site as some mask wearing schmuck, so log in, sign up, or fuck off. If you don't, you won't be able to do jack. But by joining the bastard brethren, you'll be able to: talk shit, abuse shit and vote for shit... and if you're really special, be 'touched' by The Apparatus™. Signing up is dead set easy, just hand over your oxen, five fat lambs, three maidens comely and true, and first born child and we'll do the rest.
Join! |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Argus Tuft
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 1259
Location: Jakarta
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: Bunch of Fucken Jackals |
 |
|
I am no Qantas lover, but I am getting sick and bloody tired of the beat ups nearly every bloody day.
Look at this crock of shit:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/news/qantas-jet-pulls-out-of-takeoff/2008/08/07/1217702221441.html
From the headline one gets the impression that an aluminium tube was roaring down the runway preparing to hurl itself into the air when the pilot had second thoughts and "aborted the takeoff". However, if we read a little way down "A passenger said the plane was taxiing to the runway before it was turned around."
Root my boot! The a/c did not even get on to the runway. That is not an aborted take off for shits sake. A couple of weeks ago it probably would not get a run in the papers. Perhaps a small fill in 1/4 column on a middle page if it was a slow news day. But now the jackals are after Qantas. Cunch of bunts. 
_________________
Argus Tuft
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adelaide_passenger
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 295
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed, Argus.
It seems as I get older: the media only increasingly gives me the shits.
The head of Qantas Engineering had body language showing a hint of: 'fuck off you sensationalist prick' during a interview over the Adelaide landing gear door 'OMFG, we're all gonna die' malfunction. Even the page jumped on the 'bash-up bandwagon' when that minor incident made front page news on a rail site. *sigh*
I'd bet most of those cocksuckers are forced to use Qantas regularly. They ought to quietly ban journalists from their flights, or provide a special scenic flight for journalists terminating in a firey crater at the side of a mountain.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ninthnotch
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 2178
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember once when Ms. Notch and I went to the Blue Mountains on a dirty weekend in about 2002 (snerk) - we caught a Qantas 767-300 - (one of the ex British ones, VH-ZXB IIRC) from Melbourne to Sydney. As we were getting ready to board, an announcement over the PA at Tulla informed us that said 767 wasn't OK and would be replaced with another 767 - (VH-ZXF, plane nerd that I am) in about 30 minutes.
The woman in front of me - who was a typical purse-mouthed fuckwit - started bitching and moaning about the poor service that QWantas gave and she'd be late and they should maintain their planes better and how dare they delay her, until I cracked it, turned to her and said: "Planes have mechanical problems. All mechanical things do. Just be fucking grateful that Qantas at least put your personal fucking safety in front of flying in an unsafe plane and crashing".
Point is - and one the media fail to fucking grasp -is that a plane, like anything else, occasionally have problems. 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time, zero will go wrong, and plane will land safely and get the aircraft mechanics to fix it. That remaining percent of the time is usually the result of multiple fuckuppery occurring - and Qantas are from what I've seen pretty good at ensuring this doesn't happen.
_________________
That's an attention-getter!
Link to video trainporn
Link to photo trainporn
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argus Tuft
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 1259
Location: Jakarta
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is possibly a bit like weird things that people watch on the tube, but one of my Tuesday night faves is Air Crash Investigation on the National Geographic channel. Bit of nostalgic professional interest I suppose.
One I saw this week blew me away. These fuktards in a Canadian B767 left the ground with their fuel gauges out of service. Funny thing the investigation did not make any serious comment about that. Rat's arse. Airmanship 1, first thing you ever learn about flying would tell you don't fucken fly if you don't know how much fuel you have. I just could not believe that an airliner like a 767 would be allowed to fly an RPT leg without fuel gauges. I thought Canucks were regular people, not fuktards.
Turns out the ground crew converted their volume readings to pounds and filled it to 21,000. Nasty problem was that they should have filled 21,000kg, not 21,000lbs. Pilot did a good job landing a very heavy difficult to fly glider, but he should have had his nuts cut off for flying with no fuel readings. No airline management pukes can force you to do something stupid. Just tell 'em fuck 'em, I'm not risking my life and the passengers' lives by flying something without fuel gauges.
I sincerely hope that Qantas would never allow such stupidity.
Had to have that little rant. Could not believe the idiocy.
_________________
Argus Tuft
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simont141
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 283
Location: Adelaide
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One other piece of media fuckheadedness I read was the article re: an emergency light coming on when the plane was loading (IIRC). Made a big song and dance saying that the maintenance must be poor for one of these lights to come one.
But for fucks sake, isn't the point of these lights to come on? Would you prefer it if there wasn't one of these lights?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skraw
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 812
Location: Hanging out the door of a rattler
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I saw that Canadian Air Crash Investigations one weeks ago. A series of unfortunate events you might call it - how about the fact that the front wheel ALSO failed to engage which actually saved their lives because they could never have stopped the plane (on the drag strip!) with no fuel.
_________________
26 March 2011... can't come quick enough.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biqua
Diamond Bollocks
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 517
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Argus Tuft wrote: |
| I sincerely hope that Qantas would never allow such stupidity. |
They have whole different levels of stupidity up the arse of the Qant ... remember them running off the end of the runway in Bangkok I think it was, due to using a fuel saving technique that turned out to be the norm for them, despite the known risks? Fuck they were lucky on that one that is wasn't worse. IIRC (and may even have read it on here, so it must be true  ), the fucktards spent millions rebuilding the plane so they could say they never lost a plane to an accident, despite the fact it was economically better to write it off.
_________________
http://biqua.fotopic.net/
Little one, we love you though we never met you. Rest peacefully.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheLoadedDog
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 2518
Location: Belmore, NSW
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The oxygen tank incident was a beaut with the media, several outlets of which reported things like, "...followed by the plane suddenly dropping thousands of feet."
Yes, shit-fer-brains, because the PILOT DID IT DELIBERATELY SO CUNTS COLD FUCKEN BREATHE.
Ferphuxaik.
_________________
The idiot who, in railway carriages,
Scribbles on window-panes,
We only suffer
To ride on a buffer
In Parliamentary trains
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argus Tuft
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 1259
Location: Jakarta
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you are right there Biqua. A case of poor airmanship ( I should explain the word, but shagged and want to go to bed now). From what I hear you are right about them repairing a not economically repairable alumium cloud too.
_________________
Argus Tuft
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fireman dave
Shovelling Bastard
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 126
Location: Up front
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheLoadedDog wrote: |
The oxygen tank incident was a beaut with the media, several outlets of which reported things like, "...followed by the plane suddenly dropping thousands of feet."
Yes, shit-fer-brains, because the PILOT DID IT DELIBERATELY SO CUNTS COLD FUCKEN BREATHE.
Ferphuxaik. |
I found it interesting that while listening to the wahless in the cab from Rydges to Totty loop on the day it occurred all the passengers said everything was fine and dandy, and everything was handled with a minimum of fuss. The next day though, all of a sudden it was panic stations and every one was going to die.
Funking gernos.
_________________
I'm a pitiful sight, and I ain't all that bright
I'm definitely not chiseled from stone
I'm a cheat and a liar, no woman's desire
I'll probably die cold and alone
(kiss me I'm shitfaced, The Dropkick Murphys)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KRviator
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Cab of a 90 Class
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Argus Tuft wrote: |
| Airmanship 1, first thing you ever learn about flying would tell you don't fucken fly if you don't know how much fuel you have. I just could not believe that an airliner like a 767 would be allowed to fly an RPT leg without fuel gauges. I thought Canucks were regular people, not fuktards. |
Careful mate, that B767 did have fuel guages. The maintainer found the #1 channel for the FQIS to be faulty and tripped the CB for it. This let the #2 channel to take over as it was designed to do. At Edmonton or wherever it tookoff from, a helpful groundie doing "trouble-checks" reset the #1 channel CB, which overrode the good #2 channel and as the #1 channel was bad, the gauges went blank. He then "forgot" to pull the #1 channel for the FQIS, leaving the gauges showing zero fuel quantity...
Cue groundcrew stuffup of Litres/Pounds/Kilos conversion...
| Biqua wrote: |
| remember them running off the end of the runway in Bangkok I think it was, due to using a fuel saving technique that turned out to be the norm for them, despite the known risks? |
In this case, Qantas installed Carbon brakes on its' fleet of B744's. A feature of these brakes is they last longer with harder, but shorter applications. They then implemented a Flaps 25/Idle reverse procdure to prolong the life of the brakes, and also the flap track & reverser's. This was approved by Boeing & CASA at the time. It was a "preferred" procedure, that could have been disregarded by the crew in command, however, they did not have all the information to them. The runway braking action was reported to be "good" however, the aircraft that reported that landed over 5 minutes previously.
The overrun was caused by the aircraft landing long and fast, as during the Go around, the #1 thrust reverser was left in the GA position longer than 3 seconds, this disarmed the autospoilers & autobrakes, though the crew commenced full manual braking shortly after, they did not notice the absence of reverse thrust, not the deloyment of the ground spoilers. They were preoccipied with the landing and could not understand why the aircraft was not slowing. This, in itself, could have overwhelmed the crew. They believed the autobrakes & spoilers were deployed, and as a result, the conflict of information led to them not noticing the absence of reverse thrust.
A number of things can be learnt from this. Not least, do not, under any circumstances, countermand a Go Around.. You'll land long, fast, and with power still being developed... Baaad karma...And plan a short-field landing to a water affected runway.
The ATSB published an excellent report into this accident, complete with investigations into how many airspeed & altitude landing exceedences occured before and after the introduction of Flaps 25/Idle Reverse as opposed to Flaps 30/Full Reverse. Interesting trends noted...
_________________
Comments made are strictly the opinion of the author and do not represent the opinons of Pacific National, the Australian Defence Farce or the Boy Scouts of Antartcia.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ninthnotch
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 2178
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ATSB and NTSB reports - while sometimes pretty morbid - are fucken interesting reads nonetheless.
I'm a big sucker for reading air crash reports more for the methods and reading how an aircraft can fuck up and crash, killing buttloads of people.
_________________
That's an attention-getter!
Link to video trainporn
Link to photo trainporn
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argus Tuft
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 1259
Location: Jakarta
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KRviator wrote: |
| Careful mate, that B767 did have fuel guages. The maintainer found the #1 channel for the FQIS to be faulty and tripped the CB for it. This let the #2 channel to take over as it was designed to do. At Edmonton or wherever it tookoff from, a helpful groundie doing "trouble-checks" reset the #1 channel CB, which overrode the good #2 channel and as the #1 channel was bad, the gauges went blank. He then "forgot" to pull the #1 channel for the FQIS, leaving the gauges showing zero fuel quantity.... |
Must admit I missed the first bit of the show. Still, from what you wrote it still seems to me that he took off without fuel gauges operative.
Sure the groundies made a stuff up converting litres to pounds instead of kg, but if the gauges were working then the pilot would have known he had a bit over half of what he should have had. To get airborne not knowing how much fuel he had and not being able to check fuel remaining in flight is extremely unusual. I found it very strange that the captain was not severely castigated for the error of judgement.
_________________
Argus Tuft
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ninthnotch
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 2178
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adelaide_passenger
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 295
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The ATSB published an excellent report into this accident, complete with investigations into how many airspeed & altitude landing exceedences occured before and after the introduction of Flaps 25/Idle Reverse as opposed to Flaps 30/Full Reverse. Interesting trends noted... |
I Remember Boeing having a bit of a frown when asked on the 25 flaps and idle thrust reverser being company standard braking practice, using nice, ambiguous lawyer language so as to not label Qantas a bunch of arsehats.
But I think we can all agree: ATSB reports and similar are a good read guaranteed.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
