L1011 start-up charter in Cardiff
 

Does anyone know anything about another attempt at raising the Tritanic?

Job Details: Experienced L1011 First Officers and Flight engineers for charter company operating long haul charters.
Must be L1011 certified and longhaul experienced
Base: Cardiff Toronto US (south West)
Job Posted: January 30th 2009
Flightdeck Recruitment.

TCF

Wait for it........

Still a little bit early in the morning for the good ole boy's in Arizona to put in an appearance :}

Actually, it ain't however...I have no idea about these folks.
However, I do know about another new one....but can't say at the moment.;)

ASFKAP, I didn't say that I believed it, I simply quoted the crewing advert at 'Flight Deck Recruitment' and put the feelers out for any further information.

TCF

I have 45 years experience as an LAE working with many types and can say with certainty that the 1011 was the most difficult to maintain.It was loved by aircrew as a pilots aircraft but for us it was a nightmare even when new - I have done more landing gear swings than with any other type. When operated with 747s I estimate it took at least 25% more manhours to keep it serviceable - I did not grieve when my company took it out of service.Ask any old hand about mixing ejectors and watch them turn purple!The hydraulic systems were fragile,pneumatics just as bad and the APU was an overcomplicated disaster - easily replaced was its saving grace.Great aeroplane to fly in but to maintain - no thanks.

Sound familiar, bcgallacher, after reading the thread referenced by our constant L1011 critic?
Simply...can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
IE: if you have no particular specialized knowledge nor factory training, you will find yourself behind the eight ball, regardless of the particular type.

The Guv'ner hasn't been let out of prison, has he?

I worked with the things for about 13 years - I understood them as well as anybody - I have a fairly good reputation in the business. I could rectify the defects but the just had more defects than most.My own opinion is that too many British designers were involved and as usual made the thing more complex and difficult to maintain. Cracking hydraulic lines,ruptured pneumatic ducts etc were a daily problem.The hydraulic fittings were unique to Lockheed and the lines were installed at assembly so that in some cases the only way to remove them was to cut them into short pieces.The APU was the work of a lunatic -the control system was supposed to make it possible to parallel the generator with the engine generators.On more than one occasion I have seen the turbine blades emerge in a shower of sparks when the main engine start button was pushed - spectacular and expensive!
As far as 411a is concerned, I suspect he and I have met as I believe we worked for Saudia and Air Atlanta at the same time.
His perspective is from the point of view of a pilot - I dont think I have met a pilot that did not like to fly the Tristar - good handling is one of the benefits of having British nationals involved in the design.

I was a Flight Engineer on the lovely lady for many years, but despite its complications and latter day poor serviceability record... it was a joy to operate. However, I do empathise with the ground engineers.

TCF

Another of the tristars unique features was the Tri-wing screw - for the uninitiated this was a screw like a Phillips head except it had 3 slots instead of 4.I have drilled these out by the score - what the purpose of this type of head was I have no idea except maybe to sell screwdriver bits - If the aircraft had a problem away from base who the hell had the appropriate screwdriver bits to open panels! Even Rolls had to install them on the engines.

Lets put it this way, it ain't a Boeing, nor a Douglas...and you had better understand the systems (and have the specialized tooling) to maintain the airplane properly.
The largest operator of the type was Delta, with over sixty...and a senior VP told me personally that the 'ole TriStar made more money for Delta than any other type, operated at the time.
Now, if the airplane was so successful at Delta, one wonders why other airlines had such a difficult time?
TWA did well, so did Eastern, as did ANA.
RJ had no complaints, and indeed the airplane held up rather well at SV, and at CX, where it made handsome profits for that far eastern carrier.
Even little UL, who operated seven for quite a long time, maintained out of a blister hangar at Colombo, did well.

I would then ask again, why were some carriers (especially BA) so apparently unsuccessful with the type?

A screwdriver specialised tooling? Not being an accountant I have no idea if the L1011 was a successful aircraft with regards to making profits for its operators.Possibly it would have been even more profitable if it had been easier to maintain.Accessability to many components was poor and added to the ground time for defect rectification.I have considerable experience of Boeing,Airbus and older British types - the HS Trident series run the L1011 a close second for difficult maintenance. The Trident was another aircraft that was loved by its crews for its handling qualities in spite of being underpowered.
All this is a bit off thread so I will now belt up.

Sorry, ASFKAP, no particular knowledge with that mob.
Lets face it, the 'ole L1011 was the first...
Widebody to operate to CATIIIB, straight from the factory...
First widebody with a proper FMS, that incorporated engine thrust management and VNAV, all in one neat little (big) box(es), courtesy of Hamilton Sundstrand, and...
provided an unmatched approach/land automatic landing capability (dual/dual/fail operational) that is the GOLD standard, even today.

Ha!
All the rest, at the time, trailed far far behind, make no mistake.

Is the TriStar unique now?
No, other types have ahhhh...caught up.:rolleyes:

Finally.:}

Is the 'ole L1011 a true 'pilots aeroplane?

You bet...just like its forerunner, the Electra.

Superb!:ok:

Forget to add...the first widebody certificated for stange III ops, at all weights.
Thanks to the RR engines, which are quite good in revenue service.
TriStar, yes complicated, but for the airline that sent their folks for PROPER training, a cinch.

BA... back of the line....apparently.:}

Grief.... Why the hell would someone design an aeroplane to have three engines if it weren't a cock up?? :rolleyes:

B727, DC10, MD11, L1011...even the Trident, sold quite a few.
727, especially.

A cock-up?
Hardly.
Back in 'yer box:}

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think my original thread was a simple enquiry as to who might be the operator of the Cardiff L1011 charter.

Moderator
Could we perhaps create a 'sticky' for the sole use of 411A? Call it what you will, but perhaps it should aptly be titled 'Inept Crewmembers Who Have Pi**ed Me Off'.

Not being a frequent user of PPrune, I've researched some of the other contributions made by 411A in other threads and I have to say that in all of my years of flying I've never witnessed such arrogance and self righteousness that 411A so obviously displays.

I believe we've all, at sometime or another, been guilty of making the wrong comment at the wrong time but that we come back and appologise and make ammends; however, 411A really does 'take the biscuit'. I've obviously never met the man, but if I were to arrive at Crew Report and discover who I was planned to fly with... I'd turn around and go home! Furthermore, if I were a passenger and heard his introduction to 'his' passengers on the PA... I'd get off and go home! Is anyone out there going to follow me?

TCF

Could not agree more with the last poster

However, this is not going to happen, it defies any logic that in the present climate someone would set up an operation using the L1011. There are any number of twins and 747/4 doing nothing that would be the first choice.

Hey ASSKAP. Enough already !!!!ting on Tristars. We get your point, you don't like them. You obviously never had the privilege to fly one.

Is that even possible?

I suspect not...by those at the only airline that couldn't make it work.:rolleyes:

If it was such a great design why are no modern tri-jets being produced now? All those 411B listed above are old and past it!

For a very simple reason, Gorrilla...engines are now available with enough thust to produce a twin that can do the job.
Of course, the twin has operational restrictions that the trijet...or 4-engine airplane, does not.

At the time, the 'ole L1011 was the most modern, automated aeroplane in the skies, bar none.
It still is a viable performer in certain niche markets.
Comments to the contrary, not excepted.
IF it was soooo bad, the RAF would have eliminated the type, long ago.
Maybe.....:}

Many large international airlines made money with the TriStar, and yet...one quite large airline stands out amongst others, as having been a failure in this regard.

We know the reason...operational expertise.
IE: they simply could not cope.

Hardly surprising, now is it?:}

I must say however, that that lack of opertational expertise did NOT extend to the flight operationas department.
I personally know many of their former folks, and they rave about the TriStars performance, from a pilots perspective.
Apparently, the problems with the type at this one particular large airline was critically centered in the maintenance department.
Surprise, surprise.:E

IE: many there simply couldn't read (nor, apparently understand) the Lockheed supplied maintenance manual, or....had no comprehension of the maintenance required.

Other airlines...not so.
Among those were...

TWA
EAL
Saudia
AirLanka
Royal Jordanian
ANA
Gulf Air
Cathay Pacific
Delta (the larget operator with over sixty L10 aircraft)

The list goes on.
All quite satisfied operators.

Amazing...sour grapes from only one source.:rolleyes:

I wonder if 411a remembers how they were sold - the briefcases full of money used to bribe airline executives notably the Japanese - and the resulting scandals and resignations

Please don't try to ban dear old 411A. Every website in the world needs at least one 411A. Life would be so boring if we were all the same.

He obviously loves his dear old Tripestar and I can understand that, since my mates who have flown it tell me that it was the best and most comfortable over-engineered crew transport that was ever built.

It's just such a shame that it runs out of fuel after five and a half hours with max payload (otherwise Fedex would be flying at least 100 of them instead of DC-10s).

It wouldn't happen, JW, for one very important reason.
I (rarely) personally insult contributors...only their misguided, disconnected, off the wall....ideas.
There is a very large difference.
Having been in the airline business for over forty years gives me quite a unique perspective...pilots...bit@hing and moaning all the time, ground engineers, the same bit@hing and wailing...but many miss the program altogether.
You MUST cooperate to graduate, simply because aircraft and maintenance decisions are made at the board level, which (few appreciate) are made rather above their pay grade.

Don't like it....quit, and find another job.:E
These folks who actually DO quit, will find that no one cares.

Nobody.

Next question?:}

True, you limit yourself to insulting people en masse. As if that showed more class.

In spades.
The P3 is (was) far superior, yet the UK presseed on with a totally outdated design.

The actual reason that the UK MoD cannot afford a TriStar replacement...TriStar does the job at a fraction of the cost of a new(er) design*.

Fact.

*Except.
IF some jack@ss commander decides to try an autoland from too low a selected height (never read the AFM, apparently:{) and prangs the beast beyond repair.:E

Quite...except for one thing, said jack@ss commander ain't a contributor here on pprune...and even if he was, he would be told in no uncertain terms, that before one pushes the bat handles up to the command position, certain conditions have to be met...if only the he had read the AFM....and complied with same.:{

In short, and this applies to every type...RTFB.

411A, I've got you on my "must read" list, so one fan, but then I'm same generation more or less. Wonder what that says about me? :ok:

More than likely...been there, done that...and have the hat and Tshirt to prove it.:ok:

Ahhhh.... Of course!! The engines on the tristar must be crap
then! Silly me!!! :ugh:

I foolishly thought it was an overweight, outdated lump of iron that was at fault! :eek:

Some of you people need to grow up IMHO.

To quote the words of a legend... "The day I grow up, is the day I give up!!"

Sound advice. :ok:

Sorry 411A, but I have to disagree with you on this one. The Tristar is costing the RAF (British taxpayer) loads of money as they are on the ground most of the time. How do I know? Because we do a lot of MOD flights because the RAF can't operate these flights themselves due to tech aircraft.

If they put civvy folks in charge and had proper funding (very important), these aircraft, just like many older types, could be kept flying for a very long time.
Penny-wise, pound foolish with the MoD....apparently.
Lockheed still has a rep there, I believe....wonder if he is even listened to?:}
IE: Keep what you have and properly maintain it...far less expensive than purchasing new.
Provided, of course, that the airplanes are flown properly, to begin with....:rolleyes:
Trying to engage A/L at too low an altitude, ain't good.:ugh:
RTFB.
Perhaps a new concept to the RAF?:}

Proper funding? surely you mean unlimited funding!

If this is what you do with your cashcow, then......

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2057/...6afa6b.jpg?v=0

By the way ASFKAP, it was actually the Loughead brothers he told how to do things.

It would seem that the RAF has about as much expertise as did BA in the operation of the type....must be something in the local water supply.:}

Heard the airline was "Fly for Beans" and they have 2 EASA L1011 500 series located ready to go.

There's a good demand for charter work presently as both Luzair & Euro Atlantic are down having C Checks and engine AD done.