Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BA to sell 21 767's

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BA to sell 21 767's

Old 11th Dec 2001, 21:44
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,805
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Post

reccepuke - when a receiver aircraft disconnects from a tanker, it may cause a brief yawing moment to be applied to the tanker similar to a deliberate rudder doublet. In a normal tanker aircraft, the autopilot will merely return the aircraft to the original attitude it was in before the disconnect and will not excite any lateral stability mode. However, if the autopilot is slaved to heading and is also under the influence of full flight regime autothrottle, a transient yawing moment will cause a heading error to be sensed. My concern is that the A330 FBW system might then attempt to recapture the original heading rather than attitude and may also detect the change in speed resulting from the receiver's disconnect. Would these effects lead to an unpredictable and possibly divergent tanker flight path for the other receiver? I don't know - and I'm prepared to bet that Airboooooooos don't either. Too problematic to accept without a technology demonstrator programme? Definitely! Whereas none of these effects would concern a 767K.....

If the BA sourced 767K has 'heavy' RR engines then it will have benefitted from life time wing bending moment relief greater than its P&W or CFM powered siblings....

The podded TriShaw programme was an utter disaster which wasted millions of pounds. Dull procurement would be the description to apply to any other TriShaw tanker derivatives - the fast-jet customers aren't too pleased with the current ones and certainly wouldn't relish any more Lockheed Trimotor tankers!!

But what we should really be doing is asking Mr Boeing to include another couple of dozen in the USAF programme for the RAF - and TO HELL WITH PFI!!!!!!!!

[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
BEagle is online now  
Old 11th Dec 2001, 22:47
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

Is there any kind BA person out there who can recount the story of the BA 767 training detail at Cork some years ago. Wasn't it on a Monday sometime in the winter around January, maybe? She was there for nearly the whole morning and then again through the afternoon until dark. I guess the ILS must have been down at Shannon? Anyone recall what is was like training such a sizeable aeroplane at Cork with it's relatively short 7000 feet runway? Tks, TTT.
Tom the Tenor is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2001, 23:33
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Epsom
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

I'm itching to know about this "shed thing and WH". It wouldn't be a spurious connection with the inhabitants of Manchester per chance, as it does the daily JFK-MAN route?
Egg Mayo is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 00:01
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Below the line
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

recceguy,

BEagle made some very relevant observations on potential problems with the Airbus autopilot characteristics in the AAR role. Certainly, response to yaw moment generated during receiver disconnect will need to be investigated.

As to your suggestion that he doesn't know what he's talking about, your comment of:

"So how do the frenchies manage when they disconnect with their Mirage 2000, which is fully FBW "
seems rather unusual for someone who claims great knowledge in this field. If you are trying to suggest that the froggie M2000 boys are on AP whilst plugged in then I would seriously doubt you are as swept up on AAR ops as you think you are!
Soup Dragon is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 00:59
  #45 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrow

Yes and Reccechap - when you've been on here a little longer you will realise that BEagle HAS done all the things you (sarcastically) ask if he's ever done. He is evidently too polite to reply flaming you, which would have been only what you deserved.

You also evidently failed to understand his point about autopilots, break-out forces and fly-by-wire.
overstress is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 01:29
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,805
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Post

Whilst I thank you for those kind words, perhaps my original post was rather unclear - I've now edited it!

Regarding the 'surplus capacity' - imagine that you are a road transport company director. "We want a new truck which will carry at least 70 bananas of stuff", you decide. So you go to the purchasing department and say "Get some tenders for our new truck". Eventually 2 are accepted for assessment - 1 can carry 75 bananas worth (or, if you want, the firm will modify it to carry about 90). It will fit your garage and will get throught the company's yard gates. But the other can carry 111 bananas worth (over 50% more than you decided that you needed), although it has a wacky new transmission system which none of your employees has ever come across before, it won't fit in the garage and it won't get through the yard gates.

Which would you want to buy.......??
BEagle is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 01:54
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Guvnor- although I realise that the L1011 is PERFECT, the answer from 1.3Vstall gives your answer.

The Tristars were a panic buy (which also subsidised BA pre-privatisation!) They are great transport aeroplanes (on the military runways which may actually be long/strong enough to take them) but the aerodynamics make them lousy tankers.

They should have been used soley as transports with the VC10 tranpsorts being modified to tanker spec in the mid 80s when the deathstarts arrived.
moggie is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 03:40
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

For those itching to know about 'WH'

You can normally check its 'reliability' (or not) on Teletext - look for the BA1502/3 as stated above between JFK and MAN.

I do suspect that its something to do with not getting near the usual 767 maint @ LHR, and also there never being a spare (unlike LHR).

Its kept on that route because (I think) its now the only 2 class LH 767...

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 03:42
  #49 (permalink)  
adamhenderson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

WH does indeed plow its way from Manchester to JFK. I last flew it in May when it had a groovy new feature...

Any transmission on the HF closed the thrust levers and the EICAS lit up with spurious tailskid and flap warnings/cautions.

Most exciting mid ocean at 3 in the morning

I'm reliably informed that a visit to the Engs in LGW fixed the problem.

757 Gti
 
Old 12th Dec 2001, 08:17
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Hmmm, about as exciting as the problem SV had with one of their 747-SP's, when the number two HF was keyed both outflow valves opened fully....at 30W.
411A is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 12:02
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Beagle -- I don't know which is better as a tanker -- Boeing or Airbus --- but I don't buy your rationale "the Airbus carries too much fuel." As a former fighter pilot, I never plugged a Texaco with too much fuel --- and should the miracle occur that the fighters don't need the fuel, it means extra range/extra linger time for the tanker --- both extremely valuable commodities.
A7E Driver is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 23:00
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,805
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Post

Static discharge - whilst I might agree that the A330K would have a lot of transferable fuel, it would be utter overkill for our conceivable needs. What we do need is the right number of hoses in the right place - not just fewer enormous tankers which have lots of fuel but are thinly spread about the area!

All independent analysis concluded that a 767/A310/VC10 sized aircraft carrying as much fuel as the design would allow was the best solution. Things like 747s and A330/340 are physically too large and expensive to permit flexible basing and AAR towline manning.....
BEagle is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 23:32
  #53 (permalink)  

Usual disclaimers apply!
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Smile

Damn and blast....You saying the a330 is too big rather scuppers the idea of flogging their worships a few B777 with that dog of a motor the GE90
gas path is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2001, 23:54
  #54 (permalink)  
rebeccadblake
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Angel

****ty that means more job cuts...
 
Old 13th Dec 2001, 03:51
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Sorry to mention it as we are all L1011 lovers, but some of our fleet of L1011 had at one time (until they visited the vet) an interesting crew awareness extra.
The number two engine would run down when the Fe pressed to transmit on his HF box two.
One day seeing the engine running down the unbriefed captain applied a fistfull of throttle and yelled (communicated) to the FE, who... let go of his press to transmit switch and the engine was over boosted.... Just like that, all at fl.350!
Aircraft landed Istanbul, number two took a week to be changed.
Commander heavily ticked off for not proceeding to destination on two engines, as his holiday with 200 plus passengers cost a bit.
Haveing pointed out the serious predicament if finding himself on one engine later, he was told this had never happened and was therefore unlikly to have been a problem.
He resigned and was upset by this incident.
Sometime later as a result of this lot, another captain spent 5 hours on two engines London Bahrain in a L1011, now this time some management were pro this, other management were horrified.
It was quite a challenge pleasing everyone in our company!
scanscanscan is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2001, 07:13
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: ACT
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

How about MD-11(K) as a max fuel, min risk? tanker conversion? This might suit all ex fighter jocks out there (358,000 lbs, or thereabouts in a 'K' configuration,I believe)
ijp471 is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2001, 08:44
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Over Here
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Red face

BEagle,

What's the problem with refuelling in "full flight autothrottle"? Seems to have worked OK for years. And why not use CWS?
15/15 flex is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2001, 14:26
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unhappy

re WH and Manchester, I'm only putting my 9 year old twins on this plane next Monday 17th unaccompanied, so perhaps I'll take some binoculars and see what BAs using! Argh.

I've done this route several times myself (and thanks BA for keeping it going and not just being a London airline, since some of us enjoy living North) and never had any problems. But perhaps with you sharp lot up front the passenegrs never realise??!
groundbum is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2001, 14:40
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

BA doesn't have 21 767's. It has (at the last count), none. They are leased.
Magnus Picus is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2001, 00:35
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: home
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Here is another angle. The 76's are not worth the 600 mill at current market values, but its a good way of the Government giving BA cash without facing the wrath of critiscm from other carriers etc. A good deal for BA and the RAF get some new kit as well. Just heard (cannot confirm) that 2 of BA's 777 have been sold???
Jase Neale is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.