New Airbus Pictures fron the air.

[Aluckyguess]

I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look 11:00
and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight into
LAX. I took a few pictures.
http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm

[**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**]

Wow thats a big vertical stabilizer. I hope its glued on better than
previous models!

Aluckyguess wrote:

>I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look 11:00
>and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight into
>LAX. I took a few pictures.
>http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look 11:00
> and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight into
> LAX. I took a few pictures.
> http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm

Even ATC fell under the spell? Photo ops first, safety second. Or was
"traffic a factor" legitimately in this case? (Seems unlikely if you were
descending into VNY and the Scarebus was descending into LAX, unless that wake
turbulence is even worse than they've been saying.)

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BT]

what that heck are you talking about... safety... photo ops?

Anyone can safely fly 1000ft above a heavy.. or in ATC approach airspace..
IFR.. 3 miles lateral.

But it does look a lot closer than the 7 miles mentioned on the web page.
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look
>> 11:00
>> and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight
>> into
>> LAX. I took a few pictures.
>> http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm
>
> Even ATC fell under the spell? Photo ops first, safety second. Or was
> "traffic a factor" legitimately in this case? (Seems unlikely if you were
> descending into VNY and the Scarebus was descending into LAX, unless that
> wake
> turbulence is even worse than they've been saying.)
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Aluckyguess]

7 miles away it was save.
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look
>> 11:00
>> and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight
>> into
>> LAX. I took a few pictures.
>> http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm
>
> Even ATC fell under the spell? Photo ops first, safety second. Or was
> "traffic a factor" legitimately in this case? (Seems unlikely if you were
> descending into VNY and the Scarebus was descending into LAX, unless that
> wake
> turbulence is even worse than they've been saying.)
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Aluckyguess]

Zoomed all the way in. I wish I would have had my Nikon D100 with the
telephoto lenses. I just had a cannon 710 in my flight bag. It was exciting
for what ever reason. How many happen to be flying and get to see a new
plane descend down through the clouds. Anyone can see it go up through them.
"BT" > wrote in message
...
> what that heck are you talking about... safety... photo ops?
>
> Anyone can safely fly 1000ft above a heavy.. or in ATC approach airspace..
> IFR.. 3 miles lateral.
>
> But it does look a lot closer than the 7 miles mentioned on the web page.
> BT
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Aluckyguess writes:
>>
>>> I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look
>>> 11:00
>>> and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight
>>> into
>>> LAX. I took a few pictures.
>>> http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm
>>
>> Even ATC fell under the spell? Photo ops first, safety second. Or was
>> "traffic a factor" legitimately in this case? (Seems unlikely if you
>> were
>> descending into VNY and the Scarebus was descending into LAX, unless that
>> wake
>> turbulence is even worse than they've been saying.)
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>

[TheSmokingGnu]

Aluckyguess wrote:
> we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight into
> LAX.

Lucky bastage! I'd have gone to the show, but I've got ruddy classes in
the morning. :*(

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** writes:

> Wow thats a big vertical stabilizer. I hope its glued on better than
> previous models!

On previous models, the stabilizer was much weaker than the rest of the
aircraft. Now the entire aircraft has been weakened so that it all fails as a
single unit in a coherent way. If anything, the under-strength wings will go
first.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

BT wrote:

> what that heck are you talking about... safety... photo ops?
>
> Anyone can safely fly 1000ft above a heavy.. or in ATC approach airspace..
> IFR.. 3 miles lateral.




ATC only needs one foot above a heavier aircraft to provide wake
turbulence separation, 100 feet above is the practical minimum as that's
what the mode C reports. Three miles only works until you are directly
behind.

[Aluckyguess]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
> Aluckyguess wrote:
>> we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight into
>> LAX.
>
> Lucky bastage! I'd have gone to the show, but I've got ruddy classes in
> the morning. :*(
>
> TheSmokingGnu
I did feel lucky. My CFI asked if I would pick one of his pilots up at VNY.
He was in a King Air I was in my A36 and we beat him there. He did a missed
approach so we were able to get in first. I am doing my IFR training so I
got a free session in actual IFR. The Airbus was just icing on the cake.

[BT]

Newps.. I was referring to IFR separation rules.. as both the A380 and the
Bo taking the pictures were on IFR clearances..

BT

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> BT wrote:
>
>> what that heck are you talking about... safety... photo ops?
>>
>> Anyone can safely fly 1000ft above a heavy.. or in ATC approach
>> airspace.. IFR.. 3 miles lateral.
>
>
>
>
> ATC only needs one foot above a heavier aircraft to provide wake
> turbulence separation, 100 feet above is the practical minimum as that's
> what the mode C reports. Three miles only works until you are directly
> behind.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** writes:
>
>> Wow thats a big vertical stabilizer. I hope its glued on better than
>> previous models!
>
> On previous models, the stabilizer was much weaker than the rest of
> the aircraft. Now the entire aircraft has been weakened so that it
> all fails as a single unit in a coherent way. If anything, the
> under-strength wings will go first.

wow, is there anything invovling aviation that you aren't ill informed
about?


Bertie

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** writes:
>
>> Wow thats a big vertical stabilizer. I hope its glued on better than
>> previous models!
>
> On previous models, the stabilizer was much weaker than the rest of the
> aircraft. Now the entire aircraft has been weakened so that it all fails
> as a
> single unit in a coherent way. If anything, the under-strength wings will
> go
> first.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Any references? Really, you think they weakened the whole thing, that makes
way more sense than putting additional spars in the VS. Or maybe, just
maybe, they strengthened the vertical stabilizer in an effort to not repeat
the past. But hey you're a idiot so who knows how you think.

--------------------------------------------
DW

[Darkwing]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:19:31 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>
>>I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look 11:00
>>and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight into
>>LAX. I took a few pictures.
>>http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm
>
> I Tivoed the local news covering the landing at LA. If you can find
> any on the web, it's interesting.
>
> The wind was pretty calm, but the captain was working the rudder a LOT
> on landing, and it got significantly sideways on touchdown. Very odd.

Noticed that as well, I figured it was a crosswind.

-----------------------------------------
DW

[john smith]

In article >,
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:19:31 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
> >
> >>I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look 11:00
> >>and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight into
> >>LAX. I took a few pictures.
> >>http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm
> >
> > I Tivoed the local news covering the landing at LA. If you can find
> > any on the web, it's interesting.
> >
> > The wind was pretty calm, but the captain was working the rudder a LOT
> > on landing, and it got significantly sideways on touchdown. Very odd.
>
> Noticed that as well, I figured it was a crosswind.

I was watching the right and left wings flexing during the touochdown
and rollout.

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> Any references? Really, you think they weakened the whole thing ...

Or the Martians did it.

Actually, I think the misengineered the wing, making it too weak. Who knows
what else they messed up?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> Noticed that as well, I figured it was a crosswind.

Or a computer.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look
>> 11:00 and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first
>> Flight into LAX. I took a few pictures.
>> http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm
>
> Even ATC fell under the spell? Photo ops first, safety second. Or
> was "traffic a factor" legitimately in this case? (Seems unlikely if
> you were descending into VNY and the Scarebus was descending into LAX,
> unless that wake turbulence is even worse than they've been saying.)

your cluelessness knows no bounds , does it?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Any references? Really, you think they weakened the whole thing ...
>
> Or the Martians did it.
>
> Actually, I think the misengineered the wing, making it too weak.

No, they didn't acytually.


Well, maybe on your MSFS version.....


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Noticed that as well, I figured it was a crosswind.
>
> Or a computer.
>

Fjukkwit


Bertie

[BucFan]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>I was flying into Van Nuys this morning IFR when ATC told us to look 11:00
> and we should be able to see the new Airbus's making its first Flight into
> LAX. I took a few pictures.
> http://kevinandrews.com/this_is_the_new_airbus_superjum.htm
>
Cool! Thanks for the photos! I bet that was pretty cool to see.

I was coming in to my home base Sunday night, which is close to our big
airport, and had a cargo 747 pass above me. I thought that thing looked
big, I bet the 380 looked HUGE.....

Thanks again...

John