Jump to content
Baseops Forums
slacker

WTF? (**NSFW**)

Recommended Posts

Guest
The law has been this way for a very long time. Always read the fine print...as long as you take the milteat $$$ you are subject to the UCMJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Like I said before, both of the guys mentioned in the article are scumbags and probably deserve the sentences they got. I take issue with the fact that the UCMJ criminalizes some behaviors that would not be illegal otherwise. Should we prosecute retirees for medical marijuana usage? It’s against the UCMJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
The law has been this way for a very long time. Always read the fine print...as long as you take the milteat $$$ you are subject to the UCMJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Like I said before, both of the guys mentioned in the article are scumbags and probably deserve the sentences they got. I take issue with the fact that the UCMJ criminalizes some behaviors that would not be illegal otherwise. Should we prosecute retirees for medical marijuana usage? It’s against the UCMJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s also a federal Schedule 1 drug. It is still a federal crime to possess regardless of state laws. Should that change? Probably. But until it does...having a medical marijuana license still means you’re not allowed to have firearms and many other issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, Boeing is working on a fix. 

 

I hate CNN. 

5C47A9A4-8CC7-4398-9BC1-D3396296AFD4.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

Apparently, Boeing is working on a fix. 

 

I hate CNN. 

5C47A9A4-8CC7-4398-9BC1-D3396296AFD4.jpeg

I see their Green New Deal prototype still has some bugs to work out.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pawnman, a friend told me the FAA is mandating a fix to this. A modification will be made so that when the tanks go empty, it will really reduce the weight and allow the 777 to float higher. 

And the new jet fuel blend (50% Jet A, 50% helium) will also help... somehow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

And the new jet fuel blend (50% Jet A, 50% helium) will also help... somehow

It'll be mixed with evil cow farts.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For not non-flyer, because the perspective is difficult, I'm assuming it's a cargo aircraft and the load shifted all back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To paraphrase... Original poster blamed the load team for downloading their jet nose-first. (C.G. shifted beyond aft limit.)

Edited by D_Vezencuando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
To paraphrase... Original poster blamed the load team for downloading their jet nose-first. (C.G. shifted beyond aft limit.)

How else would they download it? It doesn’t have a ramp like the C-5. Everything goes in through the front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move the aft load forward before you off load the front stuff.  Put the heavier stuff in the middle.  Tailstand.  Etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Move the aft load forward before you off load the front stuff.  Put the heavier stuff in the middle.  Tailstand.  Etc.

Fair enough. I figured the load plans would usually be such that this wouldn’t be necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

For not non-flyer, because the perspective is difficult, I'm assuming it's a cargo aircraft and the load shifted all back?

What may be the issue is the forward belly freight.  When the load team doesn't communicate well, they may end up with freight on the main deck aft of the CG.  The guys unloading the forward belly (forward of CG) do that too quickly and eventually gravity wins.  I've seen this happen a few times.  I was working at another cargo carrier (before FedEx) on a layover in Anchorage.  My Captain called me and said "turn on Fox News".  So, I do and there's the aircraft we're supposed to take to Taipei in 18 hours at LAX looking just like that 747.  "Ah..yeah, I guess our ANC layover just got a bit longer."  6000 lb pallet of stuff that was half-way to the door rolled back during the tilt and almost killed a guy who dove out of the way plus did big time damage to the aft bulkhead and a/c structure.

Most cargo outfits have a tailstand, a weight cart attached to the nose gear or a strap running through the nose gear anchored to eye-bolts in the concrete during loading/unloading to avoid this.  The 777F has the main deck door aft of the wing, so all the main deck freight is loaded and unloaded from front to back.  Pretty much impossible to put one on the tail doing it that way (but you'll still never see one of ours without a strap or weight cart).

Edited by JeremiahWeed
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:


How else would they download it? It doesn’t have a ramp like the C-5. Everything goes in through the front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

747 freighters have a main cargo door on the left side, aft of the wing. In my experience, nose loading/unloading was a rare event used mostly for outsized cargo. Might be more prevalent at different operators though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:


Fair enough. I figured the load plans would usually be such that this wouldn’t be necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’d be surprised at how little aerodynamic/CG thought goes into load plans at freight operators. It’s usually based on what needs to come off the airplane first. I’ve seen some seriously eyebrow raising stab trim settings as a result. Never seen anything blatantly out of CG but fuel savings is pretty much a joke the way the airplanes are often loaded. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Prozac said:

You’d be surprised at how little aerodynamic/CG thought goes into load plans at freight operators. It’s usually based on what needs to come off the airplane first. I’ve seen some seriously eyebrow raising stab trim settings as a result. Never seen anything blatantly out of CG but fuel savings is pretty much a joke the way the airplanes are often loaded. 

On the MD-11, it got some pretty consistent attention.  It has a 13K fuel tank in the stab.  Once airborne, with the fuel system in auto, it will pump 13K back there if there's room and CG allows which will move the CG aft.  It'll put it right at the aft limit for most of the flight if it can.  Makes a big difference in fuel consumption.  But if someone porks away the load, it's not difficult to negate that capability.  Most operators don't plan for tail fuel management and tend to use pessimistic burns just for CYA.  Certain issues can deny TFM and if the fuel load is counting on it and it fails, you will land short on some of the longer flights.

Another factor is an emergency and rapid descent to landing early in the flight.  If the descent is fast and slats come out early, a large portion of that 13K may be trapped back there.  Can make the landing kind of sporty if the guys flying haven't experienced a significant aft CG.

Edited by JeremiahWeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember right, that was a fuel tank vent that was left capped.

That’s what the article says. It also says the jet was holding 120,000 gallons when the rupture and spill happened - 804k lbs sure is a lot for a 141.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...