PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Fragrant Harbour (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour-19/)
-   -   3G (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/388214-3g.html)

arse 9th September 2009 06:23

3G
 
Which is better? 2G or 3G?

I guess if you are talking about an iPhone then 3 G is better.

However, if you are talking about landing a 777 then neither is good, but someone knows the answer to the 3G question. Ouch!

404 Titan 9th September 2009 07:52

arse

And here I was thinking you were going to be talking about mobile phone networks in HK. Silly me.:E

nitpicker330 9th September 2009 10:17

Yep here we go, let me be the first.

At least they wouldn't need to change the undercarriage on a Boeing.


For normal phone calls 2 G seems the same.

3 G works ok for data stuff but chews the battery life.

arse 9th September 2009 14:12

Too Cryptic?
 
Obviously too cryptic for most people.

"What? Why is he talking about phones?"

To give another clue; a three time gravity landing recently occured in a 777. THREE TIMES GRAVITY = 3G

The Wraith 9th September 2009 15:19

Arse, we GET it.... As for the landing, well !!!! happens, even in aviation. Thankfully it was a 777 and not one of France's finest or else they'd still be sweeping it up.:ok:

bekolblockage 9th September 2009 23:55


Thankfully it was a 777 and not one of France's finest or else they'd still be sweeping it up.
Apparently not!! How about 4.6G? :eek:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ng-lisbon.html

badairsucker 4th October 2009 06:21

What's more amazing is the individual concerned has so much history, but still flying!!!!!!:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Michael Hunt 5th October 2009 02:02

Totally agree. This blokes file must be as thick as a crane drivers sandwich by now.
Worth mentioning that from the 777 rumour mill the 3G followed an initial bounce of 2.5G!

geh065 5th October 2009 05:04


What's more amazing is the individual concerned has so much history, but still flying!!!!!!

AND from the left seat now!!

badairsucker 5th October 2009 09:14

Very true, very worrying.:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Mr. Bloggs 6th October 2009 20:04

One Tough Plane
 
So is the aircraft a write-off? Did it buckle the fuselage? What kind of damage did it do? :eek:

Which runway was it on or will I just look for the big hole in the runway.:} Did anyone from the Tower see it?

Would have been a whole different story if we flew MD-11’s, as I don’t think the gear would have held up.

Is there a video in corporate safety about it or they acting like it didn’t happen.:=

There by the grace of God go I.:}

geh065 8th October 2009 13:57

The incident is already pinned up on the notice board opposite the mailbox room. Funnily enough it has flight number, date and registration on it! Doesn't make it very anonymous does it!

Apparently no damage whatsoever.

jonathon68 8th October 2009 14:55

It's always a shame to let the facts get in the way of a good rumor!

Firstly, it wasn't me. :O

The emerging facts are that the 777 has no g-meter, so measurement of 'g' comes from a complex calculation of ADIRU data. There is no display of this 'g' data to the flight crew either in-flight or post-flight.

The actual approach was from a heavy weight situation (extra fuel due destination/alternate wx) plus a tailwind. A high rate of flare (which was required for the conditions) for the initial touchdown led to fuselage flex which caused the ADIRU to calculate 'slightly +3 g' event. However, that touchdown was at 300 fpm, which is almost normal.

Please note emphasis.

geh065 9th October 2009 01:12

According to the official notice, the flare was started just under 10ft. Not sure how this can do anything but produce a firm landing.


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:58.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.