RE: A DIFFERENT PHOTO THIS ONE

I seem to remember that KLM fired those crew members for their little jig.

RE: Why have so many manufactures gone belly up?

I both agree and disagree with you mixtec. Yes the Dash has proved to be the better aircraft as it has been able to be developed more into other variants which is where Saab went wrong. When Saab developed the 340 they had a great aeroplane, I should know I used to fly it! It was a superb route proving aeroplane but then when a route was established you need a bigger capacity aircraft to exploit it. Saab came up with the 2000 which performance wise is the mutts nuts. The only types that have rivalled it are the Do328 and the Dash 8-400 but these were several years later when Saab had done all the ground work for them. Saab proved that the improved performance allowed them to operate in the flight levels between 250 and 310 which are largely unused by jets. This allows them almost constant direct routings, very few airways slot delays and very little speed control. Where Saab went wrong is that they didn’t achieve common type ratings so that 340 pilots could fly the 2000. Therfore a company operating a mixed fleet has to have 2 sets of crews who are not interchangeable. Dash on the other hand have common type ratings for all their variants so mixed fleets become a very real solution allowing you to rout prove with 100’s and 200’s and then exploit with 300’s and 400’s. Dash eventually produced Q (quiet) variants using ANR (active noise reduction) after Saab pioneered the technology in later 340’s and all 2000’s.

Saab – now defunct following involvement of Fairchild
Fokker – now defunct following involvement of Fairchild
Dornier – now defunct following involvement of Fairchild

and several GA companies have suffered after Fairchilds involvement. Again this is just my opinion based on history!

RE: FAA issues emergency order to inspect 1,440 Boeing jets

It seems to me that although it is being denied that there was any link between this and TWA800 the circumstances sound suspiciously similar. That is only my opinion though. The problem is that in Boeings you run the center tank dry and then the engines start drawing automatically from the wing tanks. when the center tanks are dry the fumes remaining are technically the ‘chemically correct mixture’ for combustion (generally about 13 parts air to 1 part fuel) so a spark near an empty tank is even more risky than a full one.

RE: Why have so many manufactures gone belly up?

It seems to me that whem you look back through turboprop history the arrival of Fairchild into any project seems to be a common link with ultimate doom!

RE: FAA issues emergency order to inspect 1,440 Boeing jets

Take this report with a certain pinch of salt. Yes there are some potentially problematic pumps in service but the numbers quoted are wildly inaccurate. They say 6 hundred odd 757’s affected. Well I have just had an e-mail this evening from my fleet boss saying that it only affects poduction number 1010 onwards and our last aircraft (about 1 year old) was in the upper 900’s and is unaffected. I would be surprised if this affected more than 20 757’s.
Also, what do they mean by the pilots reporting low pressures? what has that got to do with this situation. In normal operation we run center tanks until they are dry so you don’t get much lower pressure than that. The issue here is supposed to be whether they can spark or not, not what output they are producing.

RE: Air 2000 767/757 LGW-MAH/MAH-LGW

Sorry LGKR!

RE: Air 2000 767/757 LGW-MAH/MAH-LGW

T5 – Astraeus also use the North terminal. A couple of years ago I was invited up the tower at Gatwick and was inerested to hear that they were trying to pursuade another major charter operator to move to the North terminal.

RE: Isle of Man / IOM

GD1 – Virgin. I spent 9 years as cabin crew before I became flight crew. I had an offer to fly the 747-200 for them a couple of years ago but turned it down in favour of the 757. Good job too as they would have made me redundant post Sept 11th.