Did the engine just blow up in flight or just disintigrate? Either way – very odd indeed.
Sounds like where I work – nay excuse to spring the “suspension” upon anybody. I think it’s an utter disgrace the way he has been treated. What would happen, say, if he was actually at the circus watching and he got volenteered for something, would that have the same outcome? Where it would be more of an advertisment for the company – in uniform as well?!?!?! I think things may have been different in that case.
Shame really, the Flights been going for as long as I can remember – with the MEGATOPS. Lets hope some other Asian carrier(s) takes advantage of the capacity.
I liiiiiiike it!!!
So lets be sceptical for a moment. Lets say it’s possible that the sparks came from maybe something on the wing mechanics or one of the gears, maybe it was something to do with the flap motors and so the flaps weren’t extended enough and hense the long unexpected take-off because something happened after V1.
Might be cltching at straws here but just a thought to give the claims some credability.
Nice variation, the IL76 is a cracker.
Nice shots, maybe if you hang around a bit long next time, you might…..just might catch a B777 :p
Love the Gulf Air btw.
Investigators will be checking the engine performance indicator and also telephone records if they can get hold of them to try and determine the reason for the diversion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/us/25crash.html?_r=1&ref=us
Anybody that takes risk where kids are concerned want stringing up IMO. Always chokes me up when things like this involve innocent kids, can’t imagine what it would be like for them, having 3 young kids of my own, it’s horrable.
God bless their souls
R.I.P
Aaah that makes sense now, I thought he was on about dodgy things lol.
Talking about flying the day before/after disasters, I departed on a Dan-Air 1-11 who’s wings looked not too disimilar to a patchwork quilt the day after the Airtours disaster at MAN, I was only young one but I remember taking great pride in reminding the passengers in the cabin about that burnt out wreck at the side of the runway. I remember the take-off was like a rollercoaster – up a bit, down a bit, up a bit more, drop a bit, up a bit more again. They don’t make em like they used to.:D
I was in Cheadle, on the approach path and witnessed that very aircraft on final approach and even then it was way lower than it should have been and was much louder tha normal and was flying at an angle like its starboard engine was down or something. I saw a few more follow and they wasn’t on the same angle as the Monarch. IMO it certainly wasn’t a standard approach, whatever was wrong with it. Assuming it had a problem after V1 and was forced to go back to land then the standard go-around height is normaly 2 or 3 thousand feet I think which would explain it’s low height over Bolton.
If you knew half the things that went on in the pointy end you’d probably never fly again!!!
Hmmmm…..you got me wondering now. You can’t just drop something like that and not say any more about it. Come on then, spill some beans on the subject…
Blimey:eek: Good job I have faith in good pilots and am not a nervous flyer:rolleyes:
You’ve got to remember that it isn’t just one tiny contact with the runway and once happened ends instaneously, there would have be contact for a significant period of time which in turn would have caused a large amount of sparks.
Yeah but when you look backwards out of the windows, you can’t see much or if any of the horizontal stabalizer and surely the sparks would be going backwards behind the aircraft and not out to the side with the aircraft moving forward so fast.
Small point, but if you were actually aboard would you really be able to see anything?
Thats what I thought, when the runway is zipping past at over 150mph
Look the same thing happens with most new types…i remember Qantas had teething problems with both the 707 and the 747 in the first few years of revenue service!!!
Thats the kind of thing I’m getting at, no aircraft starts life perfectly.