United Airlines 747 at Sydney
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NT
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United Airlines 747 at Sydney
Hi all,
Just saw tonight a United Airlines 747 parked in the GA area of Syd. airport among the business jets, and NSW ambulance planes etc. Anyone know why it's parked there?? Seemed like a strange place to me!
Propwash85.
Just saw tonight a United Airlines 747 parked in the GA area of Syd. airport among the business jets, and NSW ambulance planes etc. Anyone know why it's parked there?? Seemed like a strange place to me!
Propwash85.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Propwash85,
Could be a number of reasons. Sometimes they will move a plane over to that area if it is staying on the ground for an extended period (ie, more than a refuelling stop) and the international side is busy.
Last week there was a singapore 747 on the domestic 6 apron (GA area) getting undercarriage work done.
Either way its a welcome change from looking at Metros and King Airs.
Could be a number of reasons. Sometimes they will move a plane over to that area if it is staying on the ground for an extended period (ie, more than a refuelling stop) and the international side is busy.
Last week there was a singapore 747 on the domestic 6 apron (GA area) getting undercarriage work done.
Either way its a welcome change from looking at Metros and King Airs.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm interesting,
Only a couple of days ago, listening to my scanner, i heard a QF jet and the ATC discussing that the melbourne-bound united jet had had some sort of problem - didnt pick up the problem but the controller did say it was continuing on towards melbourne...
The same plane perhaps??
Anybody heard anything else?
whaet
Only a couple of days ago, listening to my scanner, i heard a QF jet and the ATC discussing that the melbourne-bound united jet had had some sort of problem - didnt pick up the problem but the controller did say it was continuing on towards melbourne...
The same plane perhaps??
Anybody heard anything else?
whaet
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had to hold coming in to YSSY a few days ago and the reason given was that an A/C had shed a tyre on T/O from 16R/34L.
We landed on 07 and vehicles were on 16R/34L doing what appeared to be a cleanup. Could be related?
We landed on 07 and vehicles were on 16R/34L doing what appeared to be a cleanup. Could be related?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 2.5 hours enroute from YSSY to KLAX the crew turned the aircraft around due to the weather radar failing and massive storms building up along their route. They couldnt get to Hawaii, and Fuji would have been a problem. It was decided that a return to YSSY would be the most viable option as UA already knew all pax details and the aircraft could more easily be repaired.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing out of the norm, there are alot of different 'bigger than metros and kingairs' down there regularly, from all over the globe. Nothin spesh, but nothing wrong with my meat tray - she looks good!
Interesting that when an airliner radar goes u/s they turn around head home. Yet in GA there are plenty of people flying around IFR below 10 000 with no radar fitted, through thunderstorms all day and night. Makes you wonder.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ?
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would depend on what the MEL states neville_nobody. As for GA not having a radar I think you will find that High capacity RPT or any RPT needs an operational radar when in known or forcast TS.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neville
GA flights can operate without weather radar, but RPT requires its use, or if it fails en-route, you are required to maintain VMC, which would be difficult all the way to LAX, especially as they make their way through the ITCZ.
United Airlines operate under the FAR's, and FAR 121.357 is the specific rule which mandates weather radar for "Transport Category" aicraft.
In Orztralia, the requirement for weather radar is derived from CAR 177, and as a result the AIP states that "IFR RPT and CHTR aircraft which are required to be crewed by two or more pilots must be fitted with an approved airborne weather radar system."
Here is a link to the appropriate bit of the AIP http://www.airservicesaustralia.com..../gen/15116.pdf
Personally I hope that you dont "fly through thunderstorms all day and night".
GA flights can operate without weather radar, but RPT requires its use, or if it fails en-route, you are required to maintain VMC, which would be difficult all the way to LAX, especially as they make their way through the ITCZ.
United Airlines operate under the FAR's, and FAR 121.357 is the specific rule which mandates weather radar for "Transport Category" aicraft.
In Orztralia, the requirement for weather radar is derived from CAR 177, and as a result the AIP states that "IFR RPT and CHTR aircraft which are required to be crewed by two or more pilots must be fitted with an approved airborne weather radar system."
Here is a link to the appropriate bit of the AIP http://www.airservicesaustralia.com..../gen/15116.pdf
Personally I hope that you dont "fly through thunderstorms all day and night".
If what is reported about the United aircraft turning back due to inoperative weather radar is true, then full marks to the captain for making a very wise decision based upon safety considerations rather than commercial. Bashing through storms with an inoperative radar in a Boeing (mine was a 737 on many occasions in the Pacific) is frightening. Been - done that, as they say...
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus
And that is the insanity of it and people recently paid the price.
The reg should not be type or operation specific simply something like "when the weather forecast includes known or forecast TS actvity or the likelihood of it requires........"
So, and it wasn't always, when you step into your =< 5700kg Charter or PVT turboprop King Air, Conquest or whatever you can sail off into the yonder at FL something without being required to have a serviceable WX RDR.
It's a miracle, not experience, we haven't had more fatalities. There have certainly been some seriously close shaves that should not have been.
Tell me how you operate one of these ANYWHERE in Oz for a good part of the year and remain clear of cells developing, full blown, or dying, and the associated hazards.
And we wont even go near the de and anti ice subject.
Somewhere in another thread there was the suggestion that the regulator was regulating for commercial results.
That for the most part is specious BS but it was so in this case.
I recall in the long ago that the dodgy bros who couldn't keep up the maintenance, campaigned for and won the removal of this requirement for their ops.
In an instant the operators who were spending the money and would not operate without it became uncompetitive.
Were I ever to find the box in the garage with the photos I have collected, there is a galaxy of them of the inside of these aircraft after they have penetrated or just flirted with a TS.
My favourite is an imprint of a size 14 steel capped workboot barely 1/2 an inch from where the pilots head would have been. I never did find out whether it was the result of the turbulence having him upside down or whether it was the miner trying to kick the dumbass pilots head in in sheer terror.
And that is the insanity of it and people recently paid the price.
The reg should not be type or operation specific simply something like "when the weather forecast includes known or forecast TS actvity or the likelihood of it requires........"
So, and it wasn't always, when you step into your =< 5700kg Charter or PVT turboprop King Air, Conquest or whatever you can sail off into the yonder at FL something without being required to have a serviceable WX RDR.
It's a miracle, not experience, we haven't had more fatalities. There have certainly been some seriously close shaves that should not have been.Tell me how you operate one of these ANYWHERE in Oz for a good part of the year and remain clear of cells developing, full blown, or dying, and the associated hazards.
And we wont even go near the de and anti ice subject.
Somewhere in another thread there was the suggestion that the regulator was regulating for commercial results.
That for the most part is specious BS but it was so in this case.
I recall in the long ago that the dodgy bros who couldn't keep up the maintenance, campaigned for and won the removal of this requirement for their ops.
In an instant the operators who were spending the money and would not operate without it became uncompetitive.
Were I ever to find the box in the garage with the photos I have collected, there is a galaxy of them of the inside of these aircraft after they have penetrated or just flirted with a TS.
My favourite is an imprint of a size 14 steel capped workboot barely 1/2 an inch from where the pilots head would have been. I never did find out whether it was the result of the turbulence having him upside down or whether it was the miner trying to kick the dumbass pilots head in in sheer terror.
