VA incident at LAX

[jb747]

So what is the difference between the 3 you mention? The intent of the markings is for you to follow it with your nose gear.

All airfield markings are plotted by airfield engineers and surveyors to ensure the mains of aircraft make the radius of turns. If you operate an aircraft of the type that is approved for that pavement you will have no problem if you keep the nose gear on the guidance marking. Markings are not just painted on pavement without thought.
Meloz

Unfortunately, you're not correct. If I were to taxi my aircraft with the nose gear on the centreline, I would put a wheel on the grass at just about every corner. That is why the A380 has the tail camera that is fed to the cabin; that same feed goes to the coughpit, but with the wing gear position superimposed upon the image to help us judge the corners. There is also a second camera that looks forward and shows the nose gear. Additional markings are shown there to allow us to judge a five metre displacement of the nose gear to the outside of the turn.

Think about it. The geometry of every aircraft type is different. Whilst a small aircraft like a 737 or A320 may well be clear of the edge with nosegear on the centre, the geometry of the larger ones will be very different. And, in places like JFK, with most taxiway junctions not having fillets, even small aircraft sticking to the centreline get very close to the edge. So, one line simply does not fit all sizes.

 

[meloz]

Unfortunately, you're not correct. If I were to taxi my aircraft with the nose gear on the centreline, I would put a wheel on the grass at just about every corner. That is why the A380 has the tail camera that is fed to the cabin; that same feed goes to the coughpit, but with the wing gear position superimposed upon the image to help us judge the corners. There is also a second camera that looks forward and shows the nose gear. Additional markings are shown there to allow us to judge a five metre displacement of the nose gear to the outside of the turn.

Think about it. The geometry of every aircraft type is different. Whilst a small aircraft like a 737 or A320 may well be clear of the edge with nosegear on the centre, the geometry of the larger ones will be very different. And, in places like JFK, with most taxiway junctions not having fillets, even small aircraft sticking to the centreline get very close to the edge. So, one line simply does not fit all sizes.

Well I'll stop painting them if you are not going to follow them.

Are you saying your nose camera displays a 5 metre offset for guidance? If so, does a 380 follow this rule for all radius turns?

Meloz

 

[jb747]

Well I'll stop painting them if you are not going to follow them.

Well, if you're the bloke you paints them, how about making them coincide with the centreline lights.

Are you saying your nose camera displays a 5 metre offset for guidance?

Yes. Two...one on each side.

If so, does a 380 follow this rule for all radius turns?

Most turns that we take are pretty similar radii. I can't think of any that stand out as being larger, though, yes, we could use less in that case.

Any that are appreciably tighter may have some more applied, but again I can't think of any that stand out, probably because they are not allowed for our use at all. Probably some of the turns in LA would be the tightest, and they require that we run quite wide indeed.

 

[meloz]

Well, if you're the bloke you paints them, how about making them coincide with the centreline lights.

Blame the guy who core drilled the C/L lights after an overlay.

To be fair though you would be surprised how much pavement moves up, down and sideways over time.

Thanks for the info, interesting stuff.

Meloz

 

[Travel Guru]

I've been told by an insider exactly what happened but i've been sworn to secrecy, but lets just say if it gets out it'll make for a really good belly laugh :mrgreen::mrgreen:

TG

 

[markis10]

I've been told by an insider exactly what happened but i've been sworn to secrecy, but lets just say if it gets out it'll make for a really good belly laugh :mrgreen::mrgreen:

TG

So thats why the ground crew have new shoes with a big L and R on them, or P/S as the case maybe!

 

[anat0l]

I've been told by an insider exactly what happened but i've been sworn to secrecy, but lets just say if it gets out it'll make for a really good belly laugh :mrgreen::mrgreen:

TG

That could only mean that someone in this incident really screwed up bad and there will/should be a dismissal.

 

[markis10]

I've been told by an insider exactly what happened but i've been sworn to secrecy, but lets just say if it gets out it'll make for a really good belly laugh :mrgreen::mrgreen:

TG

Well we do have a pic now:

Aviation Business: Damage to V Australia aircraft

 

[cove]

Markis10 , that is a great photo.
Someone could audition for a remake of "Flying High".

 

[samh004]

Yikes, couldn’t have flown like that… :shock:

 

[pauly7]

I can't believe they managed to keep this incident out of the press!

 

[FlyboyAl]

I can't believe they managed to keep this incident out of the press!

I can believe it - there is no big flying kangaroo on the tail

 

[pauly7]

I've been told by an insider exactly what happened but i've been sworn to secrecy, but lets just say if it gets out it'll make for a really good belly laugh :mrgreen::mrgreen:

TG

Can we guess ... and you can just confirm or deny...!

Drunk Virgin pilot hit a building. 'it came outta nowhere!'

 

[NM]

Yikes, couldn’t have flown like that… :shock:

Actually, it probably could have, but maybe not all the way to Australia die to the extra drag affecting fuel consumption. There are plenty of examples of aircraft with significant damage able to fly. One that comes to mind was a Fed Ex aircraft hit by a missile in Iraq a few years ago. It had very significant damage to a wing and managed to turn around and land safely. A testament to the skill of the pilots and the construction of modern airliners.

 

[markis10]

Actually, it probably could have, but maybe not all the way to Australia die to the extra drag affecting fuel consumption. There are plenty of examples of aircraft with significant damage able to fly.

Or a certain EK aircraft ex MEL...........

 

[docjames]

Or a certain EK aircraft ex MEL...........

Or the QF 747 that diverted to MNL with a hole in the side of it.

Of the UA 747 ex-HNL that had poorly secured cargo door and tore a hole in the fuselage in the late 1980's iirc. Or Aloha 737 etc etc.

 

[markis10]

Or the QF 747 that diverted to MNL with a hole in the side of it.

Of the UA 747 ex-HNL that had poorly secured cargo door and tore a hole in the fuselage in the late 1980's iirc. Or Aloha 737 etc etc.

Taking off with known damage is what we are talking about, not a change of status in flight

 

[docjames]

Taking off with known damage is what we are talking about, not a change of status in flight

Really?

There are plenty of examples of aircraft with significant damage able to fly. One that comes to mind was a Fed Ex aircraft hit by a missile in Iraq a few years ago. It had very significant damage to a wing and managed to turn around and land safely. A testament to the skill of the pilots and the construction of modern airliners.

Or a certain EK aircraft ex MEL...........

Neither of these had "known damage" at takeoff. EK got it's ON takeoff, and the Fedex was hit by a missile in mid air.

We're getting off topic as usual.

On topic:
Would love to know how it happened - why is it such a secret, surely there'll be an investigation and the cause will come out anyway?

 

[oz_mark]

Can we guess ... and you can just confirm or deny...!

Drunk Virgin pilot hit a building. 'it came outta nowhere!'

I hate it when buildings jump out like that

Maybe forgot to put the handbrake on!