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

last 727 Pax Flight

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

last 727 Pax Flight

Old 25th Jan 2019, 00:52
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I worked on many B727s back in the 90s but my favourites were the UPS -100s, they had been re-engined with RR Tays and retrofitted with a glass cockpit and head up display.
Did anyone here fly them ?
Webby737 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 02:03
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by stilton
From reading ‘scapegoat’ a recent book on
Originally Posted by stilton
this incident( you may find interesting atrp) it seemed to be routine procedure on those days to delete the CVR after each flight


When the CVR was introduced to U.S. carriers in the 1960's the erase button was demanded by ALPA due to privacy concerns of the crews. Of course, ALPA received assurances that the new CVR technology would only be used to improve safety and never for disciplinary or liability purposes.

The old CVR's recorded 30 minutes and the erase button cleared the whole recording. I believe on the 727 the parking brake had to be set and the engines shut down (or was it on external power?).

Ironically, to me anyway, current U.S. regs say the erase button can delete all but the last 30 minutes of the recording at any time, not just on the blocks:

(f) In complying with this section, an approved cockpit voice recorder having an erasure feature may be used, so that at any time during the operation of the recorder, information recorded more than 30 minutes earlier may be erased or otherwise obliterated.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.359

A trend in recent years is for the NTSB to harvest what used to be labeled 'non-pertinent conversation' from the CVR. In the Colgan 3402 mishap a decade ago comments on commuting and sleeping in the crew lounge were included in the CVR transcript and even read into the Congressional Record.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 02:56
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,306
Received 136 Likes on 67 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
All the slats were extended. No 7, previously misaligned, subsequently failed to retract when the others did.
The story that was floating around Boeing at the time was that there was a belief that you could get a little better cruise speed and fuel burn if you extended the flaps a bit (flaps 1?) - but to do it you had to pull circuit breakers to keep the leading edge slats from also going out. Supposedly, the flight engineer was out of the cockpit and the pilots decided to try it - then the flight engineer came back in - saw the CBs out and put them back in. Due to the aero loads, only one set of slats deployed which immediately rolled the aircraft into a dive - which they managed to recover from only when the deployed stats were ripped off...
No idea of there is any truth to it...

Originally Posted by Webby737
I worked on many B727s back in the 90s but my favourites were the UPS -100s, they had been re-engined with RR Tays and retrofitted with a glass cockpit and head up display.
I was helping out on a flight line aircraft down at Boeing Field many years ago when one of those took off - at the time I didn't know about the re-engine but could hear an obvious difference. I was informed about the re-engine by one of the people I was working with. Good for fuel burn, but I think the main driver was noise (UPS normally operates in the middle of the night and was running into curfew problems with the JT8Ds). A while after that, UPS had an all engine flameout at cruise with the Tay installation (they got them re-started and landed safely). Anyway the FAA came to Boeing and wanted an explanation of how that could happen - and Boeing politely told them 'that engine installations is an STC, we were not involved and know almost nothing about it. Go talk to your people who granted the STC'

In the mid 1970s, Boeing was all set to launch a 727-300 program, using a re-fanned JT8D-200. United was to be the launch customer. But right before the planned launch announcement United suddenly got cold feet and pulled out and the program was quietly shelved. However the engine was eventually used for the MD-80.
tdracer is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 04:52
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tdracer said " The story that was floating around Boeing at the time was that there was a belief that you could get a little better cruise speed and fuel burn if you extended the flaps a bit (flaps 1?) - but to do it you had to pull circuit breakers to keep the leading edge slats from also going out."
A VERY well placed WELL known good friend of mine ( deceased in 2004 ) who was a Boeing Engineer -ex Multi engine Military pilot- Boeing KC 135 delivery pilot- and a training pilot - at various times in his long career - and had been involved in training a Canadian chief pilot for Wardair on 727 ( whom I happened to meet .. long story ) when Wardair bought a 727 for a route from Vancouver to Ireland as I recall with a 727 !!- told me ( years later ) about the flap- circuit breaker method on 727 . So at least that part seems to be true.

And as to the 727 LE slat and dive story - dont know- but I do know of a jammed slat issue ( which required a change in first 3 or 4 767 slat linkages ) due to a one side jamming issue on first or second flight of 767- which resulted in a very hot landing at Paine . Spent a few interesting tooling hours on that

Last edited by CONSO; 25th Jan 2019 at 04:58. Reason: minor corrections
CONSO is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 05:20
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And as to the other inadvertant dive stories - maybe- a bit of confusion with the 707 Pan Am 115 flight in 1958?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_115

During the rapid descent the copilot was unable to effect recovery. When the captain became aware of the unusual attitude of the aircraft he returned to the cockpit and with the aid of the other crew members was finally able to regain control of the aircraft at approximately 6,000 feet; they later made an emergency landing at Gander with damaged flaps.[3]
One later "story" of that plane said that after it was returned to service with slightly bent wings- it had one of the best fuel burns of that model until retired years later
CONSO is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 07:27
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wellington
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One of the best threads I can recall on Pprune for many years. Thanks everyone, fantastic memories!
speaker is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 07:39
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,754
Received 178 Likes on 85 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
In the mid 1970s, Boeing was all set to launch a 727-300 program, using a re-fanned JT8D-200. United was to be the launch customer. But right before the planned launch announcement United suddenly got cold feet and pulled out and the program was quietly shelved. However the engine was eventually used for the MD-80.
There were of course some 60 or so 727s, mostly -200s, that were partially re-engined with the re-fanned JT8D-217/-219 (the centre engine remained the original one as there wasn't enough room in the bay).

There are a dozen or so still flying, whereas the Tay 727QFs are all long gone.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 09:17
  #128 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by speaker
One of the best threads I can recall on Pprune for many years. Thanks everyone, fantastic memories!
You're welcome.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 09:59
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 761
Received 20 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
There were of course some 60 or so 727s, mostly -200s, that were partially re-engined with the re-fanned JT8D-217/-219 (the centre engine remained the original one as there wasn't enough room in the bay.
Yes the Valsan RE and WL upgrade - with winglets - I think I recall Air Columbus coming into LGW with them and Cougar? - Not sure if Sabre AW had the RE as well?

Dan Air never went down any upgrade road for their 727-200's - They were starting to get 733's and 734's
rog747 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 13:45
  #130 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilton

From reading ‘scapegoat’ a recent book on
this incident( you may find interesting atrp) it seemed to be routine procedure on those days to delete the CVR after each flight
Yes, we routinely pressed the erase button after parking the brakes my entire career.
aterpster is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 13:50
  #131 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba

When the CVR was introduced to U.S. carriers in the 1960's the erase button was demanded by ALPA due to privacy concerns of the crews. Of course, ALPA received assurances that the new CVR technology would only be used to improve safety and never for disciplinary or liability purposes.

The old CVR's recorded 30 minutes and the erase button cleared the whole recording. I believe on the 727 the parking brake had to be set and the engines shut down (or was it on external power?).

My recollection was setting the parking brake. The 727 wasn't on external power unless the APU was inop.

Ironically, to me anyway, current U.S. regs say the erase button can delete all but the last 30 minutes of the recording at any time, not just on the blocks:
Camels and tents.

A trend in recent years is for the NTSB to harvest what used to be labeled 'non-pertinent conversation' from the CVR. In the Colgan 3402 mishap a decade ago comments on commuting and sleeping in the crew lounge were included in the CVR transcript and even read into the Congressional Record.
It has morphed significantly, as do most things involving government.
aterpster is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 21:32
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 3,351
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 11 Posts
Re TWA 841: I vaguely recall a theory floated at the time, wholly unverified, that there was a practice at higher FLs of pulling the Leading Edge Isolation Valve c/b and extending the fist notch of flaps to improve stability (increased wing area ?). The first notch moved the flaps mostly aft vs down. The max altitude with flaps extended is FL200 as higher altitudes were not flight tested for mach effects.

With the c/b pulled, movement of the flap lever wouldn't allow hyd pressure to reach the LEDs.

As the story went, the F/E returned to the cockpit, saw the c/b popped and reset it allowing the LEDs to receive hyd press and extend to match the flap lever position resulting in the event.

I have a problem with that theory: The event occurred at night (2148 local time). So, we're to believe that the F/E entered a dark cockpit at night and saw one c/b popped on the P-6 panel among a forest of c/bs...in the dark and reset it without comment to the crew ?

I just don't think that passes the plausibility test.

Not long after that event, we got a bulletin about slat droop at the gate with no System A hyd press on them (not Krueger flaps...they always drooped with out pressure). There is an allowed amount of droop before MTC action is required. The explanation of excessive droop had something to do with cracks being found in the slat actuator retract lock ring...or some other component with the potential to let a slat not remain retracted.

Admittedly, my recall is fuzzy but that's what I remember.

aterpster ?

Last edited by bafanguy; 25th Jan 2019 at 21:45.
bafanguy is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 21:44
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: DFFD Ouagadougou
Age: 62
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bafanguy
Re TWA 841: I vaguely recall a theory floated at the time, wholly unverified, that there was a practice at higher FLs of pulling the Leading Edge Isolation Valve c/b and extending the fist notch of flaps to improve stability (increased wing area ?). The first notch moved the flaps mostly aft vs down. The max altitude with flaps extended is FL200 as higher altitudes were not flight tested for mach effects.

With the c/b pulled, movement of the flap lever wouldn't allow hyd pressure to reach the LEDs.

As the story went, the F/E returned to the cockpit, saw the c/b popped and reset it allowing the LEDs to receive hyd press and extend to match the flap lever position resulting in the event.

I have a problem with that theory: The event occurred at night (2148 local time). So, we're to believe that the F/E entered a dark cockpit at night and saw one c/b popped on the P-6 panel among a forest of c/bs...in the dark and reset it without comment to the crew ?

I just don't think that passes the plausibility test.

Not long after that event, we got a bulletin about slat droop at the gate with no System A hyd press on them (not Krueger flaps...they always drooped with out pressure). There is an allowed amount of droop before MTC action is required. The explanation of excessive droop had something to do with cracks being found in the slat actuator retract lock ring...or some other component with the potential to let a slat not remain retracted.

Admittedly, my recall is fuzzy but that's what I remember. aterpster ?
If the F/E found a popped CB, he should have first announced it before resetting it.
Raffles S.A. is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 21:51
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,306
Received 136 Likes on 67 Posts
A trend in recent years is for the NTSB to harvest what used to be labeled 'non-pertinent conversation' from the CVR. In the Colgan 3402 mishap a decade ago comments on commuting and sleeping in the crew lounge were included in the CVR transcript and even read into the Congressional Record.
Apologies for the thread drift, but in the case of Colgan 3402, IIRC wasn't root cause determined to crew error basically caused by excessive fatigue of the flight crew? I think you could make a pretty good case that the conversations regarding commuting and sleeping in the crew lounge were very pertinent with respect to crew fatigue.
tdracer is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 21:58
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: DFFD Ouagadougou
Age: 62
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rog747
Yes the Valsan RE and WL upgrade - with winglets - I think I recall Air Columbus coming into LGW with them and Cougar? - Not sure if Sabre AW had the RE as well?

Dan Air never went down any upgrade road for their 727-200's - They were starting to get 733's and 734's


Super 27 performance, granted we were on the light side.
Raffles S.A. is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 22:16
  #136 (permalink)  
Mistrust in Management
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 970
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Massive thread drift: how can we get into Colgan air from a great thread about the 727.


Kind regards
Exeng
exeng is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 22:28
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 58
Posts: 1,899
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Raffles S.A.

Super 27 performance, granted we were on the light side.
Probably ignorant here but anything special about those readings?
atakacs is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 22:31
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: DFFD Ouagadougou
Age: 62
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by atakacs


Probably ignorant here but anything special about those readings?
2,000 ft/min rate of climb at 32,000 feet, much higher than a standard 727-200 even with -17 engines.
Raffles S.A. is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 23:27
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Laredo, TX
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Raffles S.A.
If the F/E found a popped CB, he should have first announced it before resetting it.
My memory is hazy but I believe there were two circuit breakers associated with the leading edge devices, a "leading edge valves" and a "LEFUS". I never saw it done but pulling one would allow you to extend the flaps without the LEDs. One rumor was that they were trying out the idea and didn't understand the system that well and pulled the wrong CB.
jimtx is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 23:46
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 3,351
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Raffles S.A.
2,000 ft/min rate of climb at 32,000 feet, much higher than a standard 727-200 even with -17 engines.
Yep... that's fun to watch. Must've been "...on the light side.".

I see "ALT SELECT" armed so must be a Block 5 autopilot ? It was an improvement over the standard Bloc 4 which required you to pay attention and select ALT HLD or bust the altitude.

I got to prefer the Sperry F/D with a separate bar for roll and pitch vs the Collins FD 108/109 with the "bat wings".
bafanguy 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.