|
Motorcycles » uk.rec.motorcycles » Well, that was moderately exciting
| Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780293] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 10:15 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780299 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 10:36 |
|
<deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:vk8hb25daqjdvvtln324p09ks86qgf4mib [at] 4ax.com...
> On the weekly shuttle back from Dusseldorf on Wednesday, we're coming
> into land and when about 30-50m from the ground suddenly we abort and
> climb steeply. We then wheel around, from side to side accelerating
> hard and then backing off, accelerating hard etc. etc. climbing all the
> time.
>
> After about 5 minutes the captain calls the Chief Purser onto the flight
> deck; note two of them, not one, went...
>
> After another couple of minutes the captain tells us over the intercom
> that he had a hydraulic problem affecting the landing gear and the
> brakes, the landing gear is partially down but he's not sure if it's
> locked in position. We are then given instruction on the emergency
> landing procedure; including hearing the proper 'emergency instruction'
> and circle for 30 minutes whilst they prepare the runway to recieve us..
>
> As we start to decend again the captain tells us he's now pretty
> confident the landing gear is engaged.
>
> We went into land but unfortunately, after all that, weren't told to
> adopt the emergency landing position, which was a bit of a shame.
>
> All in all an enjoyable exercise. In the past I know I'd have been
> willing the plane to crash, fortunately I'm not doing that anymore.
>
> Some airplane twitcher caught onto the story, here:
>
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1074089&size=M& ;width=1024&height=695&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_i d=&next_id=
That is a very, very old A320 indeed - they are ex BCal and about 20 years
or so in service. The wheel doors are interesting.
Himself had an interesting time with one of the G-BUSx batch. Can't recall
which one. Nosewheel decided to lose steering on attempted take off. On the
second attempt, plane was three feet from the grass, having veered again,
when Captain Speaking decided that a tug back to the gate was the best bet.
This shut 27R for about fifteen minutes.
Ah, he says his was BUSF. I tend to watch for the wobble when we fly on it,
which we have since.
Ali
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780304 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 10:52 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780370 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 14:45 |
|
<deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ftahb21r5de78v2ta91ek0s6vb2a2mlihq [at] 4ax.com...
> "Alison Hopkins" <fn62 [at] dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> <4hrnnrF107epU1 [at] individual.net>:
>
>
>>That is a very, very old A320 indeed - they are ex BCal and about 20 years
>>or so in service. The wheel doors are interesting.
>
> It was in a pretty shitty state inside as well. The seat pockets were
> absolutely hanging to the extent that when I put my laptop in one it
> slid straight out the bottom...
Yup, well used. :)
>
>>Himself had an interesting time with one of the G-BUSx batch. Can't recall
>>which one. Nosewheel decided to lose steering on attempted take off. On
>>the
>>second attempt, plane was three feet from the grass, having veered again,
>>when Captain Speaking decided that a tug back to the gate was the best
>>bet.
>>This shut 27R for about fifteen minutes.
>>
>>Ah, he says his was BUSF. I tend to watch for the wobble when we fly on
>>it,
>>which we have since.
>
> I don't know how many flights I've done in the last 20 years. I'd
> hazard a guess at something like 3-600 but it's only a guess since I
> really can't remember too well. This is the first one that's been dodgy
> due to anything apart from weather so I can't really complain too much.
I've done about 500 or so, I guess. Himself has recorded (sad spotter, with
regs) 754. We've had very few nasties. Wind shear at Luton, wake turbulence
at Zurich and a lightning strike on take off from LHR.
>
> However... I'm thinking about how to approach BA for some 'compensation
> air miles'. My current approach... "You have caused me lots of stress
> making it difficult for me to carry out my job which involves weekly
> flights, please give me air miles to compensate for my stress" seems a
> little lacking...
<snort> Silly boy. Mind you, it's worth a shot, I got fifty quid from them
once for non functioning IFE. And free champagne, too. But I was ever so
nice to the purser, which always worked. Dave once got given a bottle of
Heidseck by a purser.
Ali
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780379 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 15:44 |
|
<deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:vk8hb25daqjdvvtln324p09ks86qgf4mib [at] 4ax.com...
> We went into land but unfortunately, after all that, weren't told to
> adopt the emergency landing position, which was a bit of a shame.
>
> All in all an enjoyable exercise. In the past I know I'd have been
> willing the plane to crash, fortunately I'm not doing that anymore.
>
> Some airplane twitcher caught onto the story, here:
>
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1074089&size=M& ;width=1024&height=695&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_i d=&next_id=
Should've gone by Ryanair.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780405 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 17:18 |
|
In message <vk8hb25daqjdvvtln324p09ks86qgf4mib [at] 4ax.com>,
deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk writes
>On the weekly shuttle back from Dusseldorf on Wednesday, we're coming
>into land and when about 30-50m from the ground suddenly we abort and
>climb steeply. We then wheel around, from side to side accelerating
>hard and then backing off, accelerating hard etc. etc. climbing all the
>time.
>
[snip]
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1074089&size=M& ;width=1024&height=6
>95&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=
Also on pprune
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=234586
--
Tim
http://www.stopharlownorth.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780412 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 17:27 |
|
"Tim" <tim [at] nospam.osvif.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7JDj$8BcdQuEFw9J [at] nospam.osvif.demon.co.uk...
> In message <vk8hb25daqjdvvtln324p09ks86qgf4mib [at] 4ax.com>,
> deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk writes
>>On the weekly shuttle back from Dusseldorf on Wednesday, we're coming
>>into land and when about 30-50m from the ground suddenly we abort and
>>climb steeply. We then wheel around, from side to side accelerating
>>hard and then backing off, accelerating hard etc. etc. climbing all the
>>time.
>>
> [snip]
>> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1074089&size=M& ;width=1024&height=6
>>95&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=
>
> Also on pprune
>
> http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=234586
And Himself now recalls that he and spotter chum were at the Northside
visitors centre waiting for some Algerian jobs on the 12th. They both saw
the go-around, but didn't think much of it, as it happens so often. Usually,
too close to one in front, rather than anything more serious, like this one.
Ali
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780473 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 20:53 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780592 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 15:17 |
|
<deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:paeib25aviak0rijif0jsa19hj01suqjeu [at] 4ax.com...
> "Beav" <beavis.original [at] ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
> <Zi6ug.34146$eQ.4630 [at] newsfe7-win.ntli.net>:
>
>>
>><deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:vk8hb25daqjdvvtln324p09ks86qgf4mib [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>>> We went into land but unfortunately, after all that, weren't told to
>>> adopt the emergency landing position, which was a bit of a shame.
>>>
>>> All in all an enjoyable exercise. In the past I know I'd have been
>>> willing the plane to crash, fortunately I'm not doing that anymore.
>>>
>>> Some airplane twitcher caught onto the story, here:
>>>
>>> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1074089&size=M& ;width=1024&height=695&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_i d=&next_id=
>>
>>Should've gone by Ryanair.
>
> Shouldn't. I said it was "all in all an enjoyable exercise". Anyway,
> AFAIK RyanAir don't fly Heathrow to Dusseldorf several times a day and,
> more importantly, don't offer decent lounges at airports.
Do their planes fall apart in the air?
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780594 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 15:18 |
|
"Alison Hopkins" <fn62 [at] dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4hsfrhF13apkU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Tim" <tim [at] nospam.osvif.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7JDj$8BcdQuEFw9J [at] nospam.osvif.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <vk8hb25daqjdvvtln324p09ks86qgf4mib [at] 4ax.com>,
>> deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk writes
>>>On the weekly shuttle back from Dusseldorf on Wednesday, we're coming
>>>into land and when about 30-50m from the ground suddenly we abort and
>>>climb steeply. We then wheel around, from side to side accelerating
>>>hard and then backing off, accelerating hard etc. etc. climbing all the
>>>time.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1074089&size=M& ;width=1024&height=6
>>>95&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=
>>
>> Also on pprune
>>
>> http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=234586
>
> And Himself now recalls that he and spotter chum were at the Northside
> visitors centre waiting for some Algerian jobs on the 12th. They both saw
> the go-around, but didn't think much of it, as it happens so often.
> Usually, too close to one in front, rather than anything more serious,
> like this one.
It wasn't serious, it was "enjoyable"
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780617 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 18:03 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780618 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 18:04 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780665 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 20:59 |
|
<deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4hokb2hanihc1ervsmvlc1o6nk5qbbonbh [at] 4ax.com...
> "Beav" <beavis.original [at] ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
> <40rug.3989$v02.1645 [at] newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>:
>
>>
>><deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
>
>>> Shouldn't. I said it was "all in all an enjoyable exercise". Anyway,
>>> AFAIK RyanAir don't fly Heathrow to Dusseldorf several times a day and,
>>> more importantly, don't offer decent lounges at airports.
>>
>>Do their planes fall apart in the air?
>
> Where did I say it was a problem?
Well as you're such a macho man, you didn't.
>
> There are so many reasons why *I* would rather fly BA than RyanAir that
> I can't be bothered to type them.
>
> It's *my* choice here, after all,
Oh do fuck off you pompous cunt. If you can't see a joke come steaming in at
500 miles an hour, get to fucking specsavers.
and since I didn't have a problem with
> the flight I can't understand why you'd type something like "Should have
> flown Ryanair".
That much is pretty obvious. Maybe (just for you) I should include a smiley
when there's a possibility I might not have been serious. (That'd be almost
every post though, so perhaps not)
*YOU* might prefer Ryanair and after all, that's *YOUR*
> prerogative, I wouldn't tell you which you should or shouldn't fly.
You wouldn't be able to help yourself.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780728 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 22:53 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780763 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 00:06 |
|
<deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:0k9lb25ei6t6fucn455klnog0vlk9ilh3q [at] 4ax.com...
> "Beav" <beavis.original [at] ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
> <o0wug.6966$i32.3511 [at] newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>:
>
>>
>><deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:4hokb2hanihc1ervsmvlc1o6nk5qbbonbh [at] 4ax.com...
>>> "Beav" <beavis.original [at] ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
>>> <40rug.3989$v02.1645 [at] newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't. I said it was "all in all an enjoyable exercise". Anyway,
>>>>> AFAIK RyanAir don't fly Heathrow to Dusseldorf several times a day
>>>>> and,
>>>>> more importantly, don't offer decent lounges at airports.
>>>>
>>>>Do their planes fall apart in the air?
>>>
>>> Where did I say it was a problem?
>>
>>Well as you're such a macho man, you didn't.
>
> You misunderstand completely. I'd not describe myself as 'macho'. I
> didn't take it seriously, I know I'm a lucky git and would have emerged
> without a scratch even if the fucking thing landed without an
> undercarriage.
How do you *know* you'd have walked away without a scratch?
>
>>>
>>> There are so many reasons why *I* would rather fly BA than RyanAir that
>>> I can't be bothered to type them.
>>>
>>> It's *my* choice here, after all,
>>
>>Oh do fuck off you pompous cunt. If you can't see a joke come steaming in
>>at
>>500 miles an hour, get to fucking specsavers.
>
> Well, tell me the fucking punchline then.
I'll let you figure that ne out for yourself. After all, you seem to have a
crystal ball of some type or other.
>
> "Better fly RyanAir" doesn't really sound very funny. Maybe my sense of
> humour isn't as advanced as yours.
"Should've gone by Ryanair" is what I said. A bit like the specsaver ads. It
was a fucking joke, but you're right, maybe your sense of humous *isn't* as
advanced as mine.
>
>>and since I didn't have a problem with
>>> the flight I can't understand why you'd type something like "Should have
>>> flown Ryanair".
>>
>>That much is pretty obvious. Maybe (just for you) I should include a
>>smiley
>>when there's a possibility I might not have been serious. (That'd be
>>almost
>>every post though, so perhaps not)
>> *YOU* might prefer Ryanair and after all, that's *YOUR*
>>> prerogative, I wouldn't tell you which you should or shouldn't fly.
>>
>>You wouldn't be able to help yourself.
>
> Rubbish.
Ryanair are *not* rubbish.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #780783 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 00:22 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Well, that was moderately exciting [message #787033 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 16:53 |
|
<deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:91ilb259fop7e2q5stqh74q65ltokf5fen [at] 4ax.com...
> "Beav" <beavis.original [at] ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
> <WLyug.7009$i32.2394 [at] newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>:
>
>>
>><deadmail [at] burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:0k9lb25ei6t6fucn455klnog0vlk9ilh3q [at] 4ax.com...
>>> "Beav" <beavis.original [at] ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
>>> <o0wug.6966$i32.3511 [at] newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>:
>>> You misunderstand completely. I'd not describe myself as 'macho'. I
>>> didn't take it seriously, I know I'm a lucky git and would have emerged
>>> without a scratch even if the fucking thing landed without an
>>> undercarriage.
>>
>>How do you *know* you'd have walked away without a scratch?
>
> Experience. I wasn't worried in the slightest, not because I'm 'brave'
> but because I was confident I'd walk away from it.
But there's a world of difference between "confident" and "know". An example
would be a gamble confident of the outcome of a (say) race *could* lose his
shirt, but one who knows the outcome wouldn't.
>
> As far as I was concerned I had nothing to worry about and that's all
> that matters really. In this case I was right.
Thankfully.
>
>
>>> Well, tell me the fucking punchline then.
>>
>>I'll let you figure that ne out for yourself. After all, you seem to have
>>a
>>crystal ball of some type or other.
>
> You seem to have a lot of anger.
I have that much anger, I have trouble typing with a smile on my face.
>
>>> "Better fly RyanAir" doesn't really sound very funny. Maybe my sense of
>>> humour isn't as advanced as yours.
>>
>>"Should've gone by Ryanair" is what I said. A bit like the specsaver ads.
>>It
>>was a fucking joke, but you're right, maybe your sense of humous *isn't*
>>as
>>advanced as mine.
>
> Ah, well I wouldn't have recognised that line as a specsavers ad if it
> wasn't pointed out to me. I tend not to pay too much attention to
> (most) adverts.
'Course you don't. No-one does.
>
>
>>>>and since I didn't have a problem with
>>>>> the flight I can't understand why you'd type something like "Should
>>>>> have
>>>>> flown Ryanair".
>>>>
>>>>That much is pretty obvious. Maybe (just for you) I should include a
>>>>smiley
>>>>when there's a possibility I might not have been serious. (That'd be
>>>>almost
>>>>every post though, so perhaps not)
>>>> *YOU* might prefer Ryanair and after all, that's *YOUR*
>>>>> prerogative, I wouldn't tell you which you should or shouldn't fly.
>>>>
>>>>You wouldn't be able to help yourself.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>
>>Ryanair are *not* rubbish.
>
> I suppose this is another of your jokes?
Take a stab in the dark for an answer to that question
>
> The "Rubbish" was in reaction to your "you wouldn't be able to help
> yourself" rather than a statement on RyanAir.
>
> Bored now.
Result.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 23:40:12 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.11333 Sekunden |
