Aviation Appreciation Station

[sa226]

Good god. Where do they find these quote generating "experts"?

"Horrific".... "Greatest Aviation disaster in history. "

Talk about sensationalism.

Its definitely an occurrence that requires an investigation. Something happened. But the lengths these articles go to conjure up visions of catastrophe is getting out of hand.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Methanolic

I've searched google and can't find any information regarding fighter jets flying around Calgary the last couple of days.

Friday and Saturday around 1:35 PM a pair of what I think might have been hornets?

Does anybody know why?

I saw a couple of fighters late Sunday afternoon as well, I was too far away for a positive ID but they weren't hornets because they had a single fin, they were dark, fast and very loud so I'm guessing British Tornado's

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I saw a couple of fighters late Sunday afternoon as well, I was too far away for a positive ID but they weren't hornets because they had a single fin, they were dark, fast and very loud so I'm guessing British Tornado's

To my knowledge there are no Tornado's around right now, if single fin I'd guess what you saw were the Hawk trainers (which are painted a very dark navy blue).

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

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by sa226

Good god. Where do they find these quote generating "experts"?

"Horrific".... "Greatest Aviation disaster in history. "

Talk about sensationalism.

Its definitely an occurrence that requires an investigation. Something happened. But the lengths these articles go to conjure up visions of catastrophe is getting out of hand.

I looked up the flight on Flightaware and Flightradar24 and it seems like coverage in close to SFO isn't very accurate. Flightaware has the last hit before landing at 1000' with a descent around 435' per minute. Flightradar may show around 300'. Both don't show the go around and subsequent approach and landing.

[cavalera403]

Listening to the ATC recording it sounded like he was cleared to land 28R on VFR and even asked if there were planes on the runway.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Is Harrison Ford flying for Air Canada now?

[Bigtime]

Another Qatar Airways Cargo 777 on the way today, ETA 1227:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/Q...425Z/KORD/CYYC

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Another Qatar Airways Cargo 777 on the way today, ETA 1227:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/Q...425Z/KORD/CYYC

And speaking of horse charters we had one of the 'other' ones this morning too. Often I see these ones departing on my morning commute but the weather sucked today.

Good day for 747's, we've seen two of them (second was Cargolux departure to Amsterdam).

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI5487

[Barnes]

The thing I find amazing about CP is that we access to people who have opinions on horse charters.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by cavalera403

Listening to the ATC recording it sounded like he was cleared to land 28R on VFR and even asked if there were planes on the runway.

Yeah I mean the article says they're investigating why they weren't following the ILS, but clearly they're on the bridge visual if one of their experts would actually listen to the recording.

As for the sensationalist text... I mean, it's not wrong. I can't think of a word besides "horrific" to describe the collision if that Airbus plows head-on into a 789 at landing speed.

[Ryan Coke]

If I don't stop before a busy intersection the results would be pretty horrific too, but it is a very sensationalistic way to describe me stopping at a red light.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

If I don't stop before a busy intersection the results would be pretty horrific too, but it is a very sensationalistic way to describe me stopping at a red light.

To each his own, I suppose; I don't recall them writing an article each time an aircraft holds short of an active runway, outlining the grim outcome had the aircraft continued.

When tower is running it a little tight and sends a guy around within a half mile final and it makes it into the news for no reason and they call it a "near miss", that's one thing. When an aircraft lines up with a taxiway, continues the approach after identifying that aircraft are on the surface with which he is lined up and subsequently executes the go around at 400 feet, that is on a completely different level.

[Bigtime]

Some more info on the height of AC759 as it initiated the go-around:

"The Air Canada plane was estimated to have overflown the first two jets on the taxiway by as little as 100 feet, and the third by 200 feet and the fourth by 300 feet as it was climbing, according to CNN partner CTV, citing a preliminary report from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. The A320 got within 29 feet laterally of the other aircraft."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/us/air...rnd/index.html

[Fuzz]

That must have been a hell of a lot of jet wash going on as he hit the throttle. 100ft is really close.

[woob]

No amateur spotters footage out there of this? Would be interesting to see the go-around.

[stazzy33]

I am really curious to know which planes were lined up on the taxiway. Even if they weren't 747s or A380s, the resulting crash would have been much worse than Tenerife.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That must have been a hell of a lot of jet wash going on as he hit the throttle. 100ft is really close.

Originally Posted by stazzy33

I am really curious to know which planes were lined up on the taxiway. Even if they weren't 747s or A380s, the resulting crash would have been much worse than Tenerife.

in order:
B789 (ie 787)
A340
B789
B739 (ie 737)

tail height of a 787 or A340 are both about 56'. Estimate 6' for landing gear length on an A320 and 100-56-6 = 38' clearance when the A320 passed them. Ballpark.

[stazzy33]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

in order:
B789 (ie 787)
A340
B789
B739 (ie 737)

tail height of a 787 or A340 are both about 56'. Estimate 6' for landing gear length on an A320 and 100-56-6 = 38' clearance when the A320 passed them. Ballpark.

Roughly based off of seat guru, there would have been 285 passengers in both 789s, 296 if it was an A346, 167 in the 739, plus the 146 in the AC A320 would mean a total of 1179 passengers. Say the crew is an additional 5% of the passengers, approximately 60 crew. Minus 2% for missing passengers (missed connections, no shows) [25 passengers], would mean approximately 1215 souls on all aircraft.

The total loss of life in Tenerife was 583 people, so "horrific" would be the understatement of the century IMO. It would have been "the greatest air disaster of all time".

[calf]

Not an av geek yet, but what are these 'other' horses?

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by calf

Not an av geek yet, but what are these 'other' horses?

Different planes used to charter horses for Spruce Meadows.

Qatar brings the 777, KLM has used a 747 to transport the horses.