What do you mean it wasn't Southwest's fault...Salk

[Whodat]

He'd be lucky to have a BRAIN!

 

[On Your Six]

No amount of factual information will deter OYS/GL.

Haters gotta hate.

I am just questioning why Boeing would also question why those planes would have cracks after so few cycles, and why other planes built at the same time with even more cycles don't have those cracks? If you have problems with people asking questions, then you may have personal problems and political aspirations. Good luck with that, and Happy Easter.


OYS

 

[redflyer65]

OYS,

The lightening arrestors were placed at different distances because of the Aloha incident. I assume the re-design is causing issues on this subset of AC. Nothing more.

 

[On Your Six]

OYS,

The lightening arrestors were placed at different distances because of the Aloha incident. I assume the re-design is causing issues on this subset of AC. Nothing more.

The Aloha incident was on a 732, not like the stretched 733 here. They shouldn't have been in the same place anyway. The article brings up good questions, and I too am looking forward to the NTSB report. Thanks for the explanation. Happy Easter.


OYS

 

[redflyer65]

Incredible.

 

[Tripower455]

Incredible.

Yup! We've got some real "professionals" on this board.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

The Aloha incident was on a 732, not like the stretched 733 here. They shouldn't have been in the same place anyway. The article brings up good questions, and I too am looking forward to the NTSB report. Thanks for the explanation. Happy Easter.


OYS

Boeing came out and ADMITTED that there was a change in the manufacturing process that has caused some problems. They thought the aircraft would go 60,000 cycles before applying more invasive inspections to look for metal fatigue. However some of these hulls have come up short. SWA currently has roughly 175 -300's. Out of the 175 only 79 -300's were required to have additional inspections. Of those 79 only 5 were required to get additional MX.

 

[GuppyWN]

And proof of another dangerous SWAPA pilot flying your family and friends in violation of Boeings limitations.

SWA thinks limitations are just suggestions to follow when it is convenient.

I will write real slow for the SWAPA pilots who need the tutoring.

250 k below 10k is a design limitation. period. end of discussion. fact.

Birds fly below 10k and wind screens are designed to withstand a bird strike below 250 knots. Not 259, 260, 261, or 270, but 250 or slower.

Staker is another SWA pilot who doesn't know what he is doing.

Somebody forgot to tell that to Houston where, until a couple years ago, there was NO SPEED LIMIT below 10k on climbout.

The 250 knots below 10k is a design limit IF THE WINDOW HEAT is MEL'd.

Gup

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Lucky,

Not too bright, dude.

Are you the jackwagon slowing us all down on the Fisel Arrival in FLL?

Isn't that the airport where they say "Delta on Fire, Go Around......Southwest, cleared for immediate takeoff"???

 

[Dumb Pilot]

250 k below 10k is a design limitation. period. end of discussion. fact.

Birds fly below 10k and wind screens are designed to withstand a bird strike below 250 knots. Not 259, 260, 261, or 270, but 250 or slower.

Sorry Luckytohaveajob but you are mistaken, the 250KTS bellow 10K within a TCA came to be due to the accident over NYC in 1960 of a UAL DC-8 and a TWA Connie, it has nothing to do with bird strikes, worldwide in areas that are not so busy as some of our most congested TCA's here in the US there is no speed limitation bellow 10K and some TCA's have speed limits only for arriving A/C's and departing A/C's have no speed limits at any altitude. Also your assessment about birds is inaccurate, here is some basic info about the subject.



The altitude record is held by a Rüppell's griffon Gyps rueppelli, a vulture with a 10-foot wingspan. On November 29, 1975 one was sucked into a jet engine 37,900 feet above the Ivory Coast in West Africa. The plane was damaged but landed safely. What the bird was doing up so high I have no idea, since this species is not migratory.

The bird that flies highest most regularly is the bar-headed goose Anser indicus, which travels directly over the Himalayas en route between its nesting grounds in Tibet and winter quarters in India. They are sometimes seen flying well above the peak of Mt. Everest at 29,035 ft. Birds have some natural advantages for getting oxygen at high altitudes, in particular an arrangement of air sacs that allows them to circulate inhaled air twice through the lungs with each breath--much more efficient than the in-and-out system used by mammals. Bar-headed geese have special adaptations that make them even better at high-flying than other birds. They have a special type of hemoglobin that absorbs oxygen very quickly at high altitudes, and their capillaries penetrate especially deep within their muscles to transfer oxygen to the muscle fibers.

Other high flying birds include whooper swans, once observed by a pilot at 27,000 feet over the Atlantic between Iceland and Europe, and bar-tailed godwits (a shorebird), which have been seen at almost 20,000 feet. The record for North America is a mallard duck that collided with an airplane at 21,000 feet above Elko, Nevada in July, 1963. Most birds, though, fly lower--waterfowl typically at between 200-4,000 feet, and small songbirds at between 500-2,000 feet. However, the tiny Blackpoll warbler will fly up to 16,000 feet high in order to catch favorable winds on migration between Canada and South America. I'm not sure how well a sparrow would do, but similar-sized birds are quite capable of flying very high indeed.
Source(s):

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbir…