747 cargo splits in two during takeoff!

[D Ramapriya]

Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/index.html

Ramapriya

[Mxsmanic]

D Ramapriya writes:

> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/index.html

Too much cargo, perhaps.

[F. Baum]

On May 25, 7:51*am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/in...
> Ramapriya


WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past incedents
would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly inspected, or a
cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?

[BT]

Talk about a miss representation of facts..
no one yet knows the facts..
for some reason the aircraft did not have a successful take off..
more than likely an aborted take off, which caused the over running of the
available runway
and the aircraft broke apart because of the rough terrain
I would doubt that the aircraft failed to take off because it broke in two..
parts would be more widely scattered.

BT

"D Ramapriya" > wrote in message
...
> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/index.html
>
> Ramapriya

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> D Ramapriya writes:
>
>> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/ind
>> ex.html
>
> Too much cargo, perhaps.
>

You're a moron.

[[email protected]]

On May 25, 8:43*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> D Ramapriya writes:
> > Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...
> >http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/in...
>
> Too much cargo, perhaps.

Too much opinion, too little intelligence, perhaps.

[Flydive]

BT wrote:
> Talk about a miss representation of facts..
> no one yet knows the facts..
> for some reason the aircraft did not have a successful take off..
> more than likely an aborted take off, which caused the over running of the
> available runway
> and the aircraft broke apart because of the rough terrain
> I would doubt that the aircraft failed to take off because it broke in two..
> parts would be more widely scattered.
>
> BT
>
>

And where did you read that the aircraft failed to take oof because it
broke?

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 5/25/2008 10:03 AM F. Baum said the following:
> On May 25, 7:51 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/in...
>> Ramapriya
>
>
> WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past incedents
> would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly inspected, or a
> cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?

It's Kallita Air - no need to say more... But I'm sure Bertie will add
to that.

[F. Baum]

On May 25, 11:26*am, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>
> It's Kallita Air - no need to say more... But I'm sure Bertie will add
> to that.

Exactly what I was thinking but I didnt want to say it <G>. The
article didnt mention an RTO but of course that is a posibility.
F Baum

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> D Ramapriya writes:
>
>> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/ind
>> ex.html
>
> Too much cargo, perhaps.
>

Fjukkwit./



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in
:

> On May 25, 7:51*am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
>> alive...http:
> //edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/in...
>> Ramapriya
>
>
> WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past incedents
> would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly inspected, or a
> cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?
>

Well, it was one of Connie's .... Straight away you know that something
wasn't right.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> on 5/25/2008 10:03 AM F. Baum said the following:
>> On May 25, 7:51 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>>> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
>>>
alive...http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircra
>>> sh.ap/in... Ramapriya
>>
>>
>> WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past
>> incedents would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly
>> inspected, or a cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?
>
> It's Kallita Air - no need to say more... But I'm sure Bertie will add
> to that.
>

Same thing I thought straight away.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

HARRY POTTER > wrote in
:

> F. Baum wrote:
>
>> On May 25, 7:51Â*am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>>> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
>>>
> alive...http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircras
h
> .ap/in...
>>> Ramapriya
>>
>>
>> WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past
>> incedents would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly
>> inspected, or a cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?
>
> please don't encourage him...



Yeah, like I need encouragement.

Bertie

[george]

On May 26, 10:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > D Ramapriya writes:
>
> >> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...
> >>http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/ind
> >> ex.html
>
> > Too much cargo, perhaps.
>
> Fjukkwit./
>
He seems to have an obsession about overloaded aircraft...
even when they ain't....

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On May 26, 10:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > D Ramapriya writes:
>>
>> >> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
>> >> alive...
>> >>
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/i
>> >>nd
>> >> ex.html
>>
>> > Too much cargo, perhaps.
>>
>> Fjukkwit./
>>
> He seems to have an obsession about overloaded aircraft...
> even when they ain't....
>
>

We won't get into the Freuian aspects of all of that.

Best guess is that they had some sort of problem near V1 and abandoned.
Abandoned takeoffs are always a bit scary and the likelyhood of an over-
run is high if they're done at a very high speed. Because of this we're
encouraged to get our heads into go mode approaching V1 and we only stop
for something absolutely drastic in the "high speed regime" which is
usually between 80 knots and V1 wheras we stop for just about anything
below 80.

Bertie

[Tina]

B, I can appreciate the 'go mode' from some speed onward, but runway
lengths vary by some thousands of yards. With a typical load and
normal conditions, how long a runway would allow you to decide to not
go if something drastic happened at just below lift off speed (like a
door blowing open, or a windscreen failing, something like that)?

On May 25, 8:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> george > wrote :
>
> > On May 26, 10:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > D Ramapriya writes:
>
> >> >> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
> >> >> alive...
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/i
>
> >> >>nd
> >> >> ex.html
>
> >> > Too much cargo, perhaps.
>
> >> Fjukkwit./
>
> > He seems to have an obsession about overloaded aircraft...
> > even when they ain't....
>
> We won't get into the Freuian aspects of all of that.
>
> Best guess is that they had some sort of problem near V1 and abandoned.
> Abandoned takeoffs are always a bit scary and the likelyhood of an over-
> run is high if they're done at a very high speed. Because of this we're
> encouraged to get our heads into go mode approaching V1 and we only stop
> for something absolutely drastic in the "high speed regime" which is
> usually between 80 knots and V1 wheras we stop for just about anything
> below 80.
>
> Bertie

[BT]

the original OP post

"Flydive" > wrote in message
...
> BT wrote:
>> Talk about a miss representation of facts..
>> no one yet knows the facts..
>> for some reason the aircraft did not have a successful take off..
>> more than likely an aborted take off, which caused the over running of
>> the available runway
>> and the aircraft broke apart because of the rough terrain
>> I would doubt that the aircraft failed to take off because it broke in
>> two.. parts would be more widely scattered.
>>
>> BT
>>
>
> And where did you read that the aircraft failed to take oof because it
> broke?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> B, I can appreciate the 'go mode' from some speed onward, but runway
> lengths vary by some thousands of yards. With a typical load and
> normal conditions, how long a runway would allow you to decide to not
> go if something drastic happened at just below lift off speed (like a
> door blowing open, or a windscreen failing, something like that)?
>
>


Actually, we probably wouldn't stop for something like that if we were
close to V1. The actual recommended brief from MR Boeing these days is
"We'll stop for an engine fire, an engine failure indicated by two
parameters, or anything I reckon makes the airplane unsafe to fly" The
last bit reinforces pilot discretion and allows us to make a decision
based on our assessment in a given situation. For instance, though we're
not supposed to, i did abandon for a belly cargo door unlocked light
once. I was in the high speed regime, but still relatively slow ( about
110 knots) and we were light and the runway was quite long. No big deal
and the stop was pretty much a non event. However, there's no way I
would have stopped for that if I were close to V1 and the runway was
short. Some people are already saying he put it back down aftger blowing
a tire after airborne, whihc is almost certainly complete crap. We don't
stop for tire burts in the high speed regime. Chances are you will also
burst the adjoining tires and have very poor braking afterwards.. He
might have doen this, but he'd have to be a very special class of idiot
to have done so and it probably would have been a lot worse if he had in
any case.
But the decision speed is calculated for each runway, and should allow
you to either go or stop at V1 in theory. IOW you can't take as much
weight off a short runway as a long one, just like any other airplane.
In actual fact overruns are common from high speed stops for a variety
of reasons, not the least of which is the time it takes to assess the
situation and make the decision. Usually they;re not as bad as this one,
though.
Quite possible they abandoned at a relatively high speed for whatever
reason and just didn't get on the stoppers quickly enough, or , as
someone suggested, there was a cargo shift, but that's pretty unlikely.
Time and the report will tell, but it's quite possible that the crew
will be found to have done everything correctly and they just ran out of
runway..

Bertie

[D Ramapriya]

On May 25, 7:20 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> Talk about a miss representation of facts..

I merely typed out the CNN headline.

<snip>

Ramapriya

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Tina" > wrote

> B, I can appreciate the 'go mode' from some speed onward, but runway
> lengths vary by some thousands of yards. With a typical load and
> normal conditions, how long a runway would allow you to decide to not
> go if something drastic happened at just below lift off speed (like a
> door blowing open, or a windscreen failing, something like that)?

Google "balanced field" and see what you find out.

I'm not a heavy iron pilot, so I'm not positive that this concept flies
here, (ooooh, bad pun, and I wasn't even trying for it <g>

From what I understand, it is a calculation done before every takeoff, and
it has to do with how far and how fast they will be able to go down the
runway, and still abort and get stopped on the runway, safely.
--
Jim in NC

[F. Baum]

On May 25, 10:15*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> *Google "balanced field" *and see what you find out.

A balanced field is where the accelerate go and accelererate stop
distances are equal. This produces a balanced V1. This will give you
the minimum field length for a given wieght (It can also be calculated
for an ATM or fixed derate). It does not give you the max takeoff
wieght and not all airlines use it.

>
> From what I understand, it is a calculation done before every takeoff, and
> it has to do with how far and how fast they will be able to go down the
> runway, and still abort and get stopped on the runway, safely.

This would be the accelerate stop distance.

F Baum

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 25 May 2008 18:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote:

>B, I can appreciate the 'go mode' from some speed onward, but runway
>lengths vary by some thousands of yards. With a typical load and
>normal conditions, how long a runway would allow you to decide to not
>go if something drastic happened at just below lift off speed (like a
>door blowing open, or a windscreen failing, something like that)?
>
all australian airfields for Airline Transport use have published
figures TORA TODA ASDA LDA

tora - takeoff runway available
toda - takeoff distance available
asda - accelerate and stop distance available
lda - landing distance available

you can find what the aircraft requires from the equivalent of the POH
and just compare the values.
(it is a tad more complex but that is basically it)
from dim memory asda assumes a stand on the brakes from V1.

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 25 May 2008 18:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
> wrote:
>
>>B, I can appreciate the 'go mode' from some speed onward, but runway
>>lengths vary by some thousands of yards. With a typical load and
>>normal conditions, how long a runway would allow you to decide to not
>>go if something drastic happened at just below lift off speed (like a
>>door blowing open, or a windscreen failing, something like that)?
>>
> all australian airfields for Airline Transport use have published
> figures TORA TODA ASDA LDA
>
> tora - takeoff runway available
> toda - takeoff distance available
> asda - accelerate and stop distance available
> lda - landing distance available
>
> you can find what the aircraft requires from the equivalent of the POH
> and just compare the values.

Um, not exactly. We do have graphs, but I haven't even seen one in years.
(I know whee they are if needs be,m though)
Depending on the kind of operation and how close you get to limiting
numbers, you can either use the figures from a quick reference handbook,
often condensed into a booklet of flip cards you use for your speeds,
(common for 737 type ops where all the runways are relatively long and the
airplane usually light) or you have a set of tables, either in a big book
or on computer, which you use to calculate the max takeoff for the runway
and conditions and to give you the speeds for the takeoff in order to
gauruntee you have accelerate-stop, climb performance and obstacle
clearance as well as looking after some other odds and ends like tire
speeds and brake energy limits, all capped by max structural of course.
In addition we have a range of speeds that can be used. This is usually
done for us, but in some airplane ops combinations, its best left up to the
captain on the day to calculate. That gives us what you would call Vx or Vy
in a light aircraft or somethng in between which would give us a good
comprimise between a relatively short runway and a climb speed that would
give a decent weight allowance for the climb. It's called improved climb
performance (someone is going to pick me up on this with the more proper
definition of improved climb, but if you read that statement carefully,
you'll see it's correct)

> (it is a tad more complex but that is basically it)
> from dim memory asda assumes a stand on the brakes from V1.

Actually, in a lot of airplanes nowadays you must do a rolling takeoff or
you'll wreck the runway!



Bertie


Bertie

[BT]

So we'll blame it on the hysterical news media not knowing of what they
write.
B

"D Ramapriya" > wrote in message
...
> On May 25, 7:20 pm, "BT" > wrote:
>> Talk about a miss representation of facts..
>
> I merely typed out the CNN headline.
>
> <snip>
>
> Ramapriya

[Tina]

Is the rolling start to protect the runway driven by exhaust gas
temperature effects on the runway surface? That has to be a silly
questiion, it can't be related to the airplane weight, since the take
off portion is also where they land, and they are not light on their
toes!

On May 26, 10:36 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Stealth Pilot > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 25 May 2008 18:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
> > wrote:
>
> >>B, I can appreciate the 'go mode' from some speed onward, but runway
> >>lengths vary by some thousands of yards. With a typical load and
> >>normal conditions, how long a runway would allow you to decide to not
> >>go if something drastic happened at just below lift off speed (like a
> >>door blowing open, or a windscreen failing, something like that)?
>
> > all australian airfields for Airline Transport use have published
> > figures TORA TODA ASDA LDA
>
> > tora - takeoff runway available
> > toda - takeoff distance available
> > asda - accelerate and stop distance available
> > lda - landing distance available
>
> > you can find what the aircraft requires from the equivalent of the POH
> > and just compare the values.
>
> Um, not exactly. We do have graphs, but I haven't even seen one in years.
> (I know whee they are if needs be,m though)
> Depending on the kind of operation and how close you get to limiting
> numbers, you can either use the figures from a quick reference handbook,
> often condensed into a booklet of flip cards you use for your speeds,
> (common for 737 type ops where all the runways are relatively long and the
> airplane usually light) or you have a set of tables, either in a big book
> or on computer, which you use to calculate the max takeoff for the runway
> and conditions and to give you the speeds for the takeoff in order to
> gauruntee you have accelerate-stop, climb performance and obstacle
> clearance as well as looking after some other odds and ends like tire
> speeds and brake energy limits, all capped by max structural of course.
> In addition we have a range of speeds that can be used. This is usually
> done for us, but in some airplane ops combinations, its best left up to the
> captain on the day to calculate. That gives us what you would call Vx or Vy
> in a light aircraft or somethng in between which would give us a good
> comprimise between a relatively short runway and a climb speed that would
> give a decent weight allowance for the climb. It's called improved climb
> performance (someone is going to pick me up on this with the more proper
> definition of improved climb, but if you read that statement carefully,
> you'll see it's correct)
>
> > (it is a tad more complex but that is basically it)
> > from dim memory asda assumes a stand on the brakes from V1.
>
> Actually, in a lot of airplanes nowadays you must do a rolling takeoff or
> you'll wreck the runway!
>
> Bertie
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> Is the rolling start to protect the runway driven by exhaust gas
> temperature effects on the runway surface? That has to be a silly
> questiion, it can't be related to the airplane weight, since the take
> off portion is also where they land, and they are not light on their
> toes!
>
>

Yes, but we're not even supposed to do it on concrete runways which I've
never understood. I've also had instructors tell me that sucking bits of
the runway up in fornt of you is an issue which sounds pretty unlikely
to me, and alos that the torsional load on the runway is an issue, which
certainly seems possible when you see the damage braking and turning on
the runway causes, but it's not really my department, i just do as I'm
told!


Bertie

[Tina]

On May 26, 12:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Tina > wrote :
>
> > Is the rolling start to protect the runway driven by exhaust gas
> > temperature effects on the runway surface? That has to be a silly
> > questiion, it can't be related to the airplane weight, since the take
> > off portion is also where they land, and they are not light on their
> > toes!
>
> Yes, but we're not even supposed to do it on concrete runways which I've
> never understood. I've also had instructors tell me that sucking bits of
> the runway up in fornt of you is an issue which sounds pretty unlikely
> to me, and alos that the torsional load on the runway is an issue, which
> certainly seems possible when you see the damage braking and turning on
> the runway causes, but it's not really my department, i just do as I'm
> told!
>
> Bertie

Bertie, don't say things like you do as you're told in this news
group. There will be some pretty inventive "I told you to's".

Thanks for the information -- I guess FOD is a consideration, but some
FO's, like birds, insist on being blended then cooked no matter what.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> On May 26, 12:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Tina > wrote
>> innews:35a573d0-56f5-452a-abd8-37ddd3ccc956
@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > Is the rolling start to protect the runway driven by exhaust gas
>> > temperature effects on the runway surface? That has to be a silly
>> > questiion, it can't be related to the airplane weight, since the
>> > take off portion is also where they land, and they are not light on
>> > their toes!
>>
>> Yes, but we're not even supposed to do it on concrete runways which
>> I've never understood. I've also had instructors tell me that sucking
>> bits of the runway up in fornt of you is an issue which sounds pretty
>> unlikely to me, and alos that the torsional load on the runway is an
>> issue, which certainly seems possible when you see the damage braking
>> and turning on the runway causes, but it's not really my department,
>> i just do as I'm told!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Bertie, don't say things like you do as you're told in this news
> group. There will be some pretty inventive "I told you to's".


Well, this one is in the flight manual, so it's what we do.
>
> Thanks for the information -- I guess FOD is a consideration, but some
> FO's, like birds, insist on being blended then cooked no matter what.

Well, it's not a big deal for little ones anyway. I have done full power
on the brakes in things like 737s, but it's definitely not allowed in
the A300 I used to fly and we don't do it in the 75 or 76 either.


Bertie
>
>

[F. Baum]

On May 26, 10:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> >> Yes, but we're not even supposed to do it on concrete runways which
> >> I've never understood. I've also had instructors tell me that sucking
> >> bits of the runway up in fornt of you is an issue which sounds pretty
> >> unlikely to me, and alos that the torsional load on the runway is an
> >> issue, which certainly seems possible when you see the damage braking
> >> and turning on the runway causes, but it's not really my department,
> >> i just do as I'm told!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Thanks for the information -- I guess FOD is a consideration, but some
> > FO's, like birds, insist on being blended then cooked no matter what.
>
> Well, it's not a big deal for little ones anyway. I have done full power
> on the brakes in things like 737s, but it's definitely not allowed in
> the A300 I used to fly and we don't do it in the 75 or 76 either.
>
Aside from the FOD the book also mentions Stall/Surge if you have an
Xwind or Twind. This makes sense to me. The added TO distance is
negligable anyways. Even for a static TO we only stand em up and then
release the brakes and punch TOGA. Im like you man, they sign my check
and if thats the ways they want it done,,,,,,,,,,,,,

F Baum

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:cf3bac99-86ae-41c2-976d-
:

> On May 26, 10:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Yes, but we're not even supposed to do it on concrete runways
which
>> >> I've never understood. I've also had instructors tell me that
sucking
>> >> bits of the runway up in fornt of you is an issue which sounds
pretty
>> >> unlikely to me, and alos that the torsional load on the runway is
an
>> >> issue, which certainly seems possible when you see the damage
braking
>> >> and turning on the runway causes, but it's not really my
department,
>> >> i just do as I'm told!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Thanks for the information -- I guess FOD is a consideration, but
some
>> > FO's, like birds, insist on being blended then cooked no matter
what.
>>
>> Well, it's not a big deal for little ones anyway. I have done full
power
>> on the brakes in things like 737s, but it's definitely not allowed in
>> the A300 I used to fly and we don't do it in the 75 or 76 either.
>>
> Aside from the FOD the book also mentions Stall/Surge if you have an
> Xwind or Twind. This makes sense to me. The added TO distance is
> negligable anyways. Even for a static TO we only stand em up and then
> release the brakes and punch TOGA. Im like you man, they sign my check
> and if thats the ways they want it done,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>

Yeah, that too. Though I've never had one in a high baypass engine.
Plenty with JT8s, of course.. Almost normal with them especially in the
727. I'd have to look it up in the 75/76 manuals, but you know what
they're like these days. they tell you what to do but seldom why
anymore...


Bertie

[clint]

JOHN WAYNE!! Th cow loves John Wayne!!
Stealth Pilot presented the following explanation :
> all australian airfields for Airline Transport use have published
> figures TORA TODA ASDA LDA

> tora - takeoff runway available

[D Ramapriya]

In respect of aviation-related matters, risible sensationalism has
long been the oxygen of the news media. Even the smallest incident is
nearly always a "passengers had a miraculous escape" story.

Ramapriya


On May 26, 7:55 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> So we'll blame it on the hysterical news media not knowing of what they
> write.
> B
>
> "D Ramapriya" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On May 25, 7:20 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> >> Talk about a miss representation of facts..
>
> > I merely typed out the CNN headline.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Ramapriya

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 00:10:42 -0400, clint > wrote:

>JOHN WAYNE!! Th cow loves John Wayne!!
>Stealth Pilot presented the following explanation :
>> all australian airfields for Airline Transport use have published
>> figures TORA TODA ASDA LDA
>
>> tora - takeoff runway available
>


clint.
you should slow down and form the sentences a little more fully.
I havent understood even one of your posts.

if you're a sock puppet you might need darning.

Stealth Pilot

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 25 May 2008 11:45:06 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:

> Anthony,

*PLONK*

[[email protected]]

On May 27, 12:02*pm, Gezellig > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 11:45:06 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:
> > Anthony,
>
> *PLONK*

Wow, looks like Anthony has a fan...

[clint]

Seniours like you have trouble reading, writing, taking their meds and
having intercoars. DARN, I **** the cow hard at least once a month!
It happens that Stealth Pilot formulated :
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 00:10:42 -0400, clint > wrote:

>> JOHN WAYNE!! Th cow loves John Wayne!!
>> Stealth Pilot presented the following explanation :
>>> all australian airfields for Airline Transport use have published
>>> figures TORA TODA ASDA LDA
>>
>>> tora - takeoff runway available
>>


> clint.
> you should slow down and form the sentences a little more fully.
> I havent understood even one of your posts.

> if you're a sock puppet you might need darning.

> Stealth Pilot

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"HARRY POTTER" > wrote in message
...
> F. Baum wrote:
>
>> On May 25, 7:51 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>>> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
>>>
> alive...http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/in...
>>> Ramapriya
>>
>>
>> WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past incedents
>> would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly inspected, or a
>> cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?
>
> please don't encourage him...

Baum is either one of Bertie's sock puppets, or Bertie himself. Bertie
forges a lot of posts.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> Talk about a miss representation of facts..
> no one yet knows the facts..

That has never been required for a complete investigation on this newsgroup.
All of our RAP experts are clairvoyant.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "HARRY POTTER" > wrote in message
> ...
>> F. Baum wrote:
>>
>>> On May 25, 7:51 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>>>> Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
>>>>
>>
alive...http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircras
>> h.ap/in...
>>>> Ramapriya
>>>
>>>
>>> WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past
>>> incedents would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly
>>> inspected, or a cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?
>>
>> please don't encourage him...
>
> Baum is either one of Bertie's sock puppets, or Bertie himself.
> Bertie forges a lot of posts.
>


Excellent.

And peopel wonder why I do this...


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "BT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Talk about a miss representation of facts..
>> no one yet knows the facts..
>
> That has never been required for a complete investigation on this
> newsgroup. All of our RAP experts are clairvoyant.
>

I see an asshole.......

Oh wait, you're right there.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Excellent.
>
> And peopel wonder why I do this...
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>

Liar.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:KBk%j.7$U_5.5
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Excellent.
>>
>> And peopel wonder why I do this...
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>
> Liar.
>
Not at all. I give you a fairly detailed explanation of how I have been
****ing with your head and you ignore it. how is that not major
entertainment?
When you didn't poast for the last few days I actually thought you had
figured it out ( well, actually, in the bottom of ) My heart sank! My
little k00kie was gone!

But here you are safe and sound!


Good k00kie!


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

> Not at all. I give you a fairly detailed explanation of how I have been
> ****ing with your head and you ignore it. how is that not major
> entertainment?
> When you didn't poast for the last few days I actually thought you had
> figured it out ( well, actually, in the bottom of ) My heart sank! My
> little k00kie was gone!
>
> But here you are safe and sound!
>
>
> Good k00kie!
>
>
> Bertie
>

You need a new story kook. That;s just the same old boring fantasy. You
really arent much of a troll, are you?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:GUl%j.37$U_5.11
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Not at all. I give you a fairly detailed explanation of how I have
been
>> ****ing with your head and you ignore it. how is that not major
>> entertainment?
>> When you didn't poast for the last few days I actually thought you
had
>> figured it out ( well, actually, in the bottom of ) My heart sank! My
>> little k00kie was gone!
>>
>> But here you are safe and sound!
>>
>>
>> Good k00kie!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> You need a new story kook. That;s just the same old boring fantasy.
You
> really arent much of a troll, are you?
>
>
>

Obviously not. You have caught me at last..



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Obviously not. You have caught me at last..
>
>
>
> Bertie

Lame, D-.

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:39:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On May 27, 12:02*pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 May 2008 11:45:06 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:
>>> Anthony,
>>
>> *PLONK*
>
> Wow, looks like Anthony has a fan...

Wow, wrong.

[Benjamin Dover]

Gezellig > wrote in :

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:39:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>> On May 27, 12:02*pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 May 2008 11:45:06 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:
>>>> Anthony,
>>>
>>> *PLONK*
>>
>> Wow, looks like Anthony has a fan...
>
> Wow, wrong.
>

Any one dumb enough to plonk someone for dissing Anthony is at best an
asshole. An even bigger asshole if he advertises it to the group.

But, from a nitwit who says that unless you have an IFR rating you
shouldn't be flying, it is to be expected.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Rwm%j.53$kR5.52
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Obviously not. You have caught me at last..
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Lame, D-.
>
>
>



Awwww..

Runing out of k00kisms? Never mind. you shall rise agian.


Bertie

[yedyegiss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Too much cargo, perhaps.

You're an idiot, definitely.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

yedyegiss > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Too much cargo, perhaps.
>
> You're an idiot, definitely.
>

Takes one,...

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1rps9$7ps$1
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

> yedyegiss > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Too much cargo, perhaps.
>>
>> You're an idiot, definitely.
>>
>
> Takes one,...
>
> Bertie
>

Sorry, disregard.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Rwm%j.53$kR5.52
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> Obviously not. You have caught me at last..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Lame, D-.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1rps9$7ps$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> yedyegiss > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>> Too much cargo, perhaps.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot, definitely.
>>>
>>
>> Takes one,...
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Sorry, disregard.
>
>
> Bertie

I sure hope to hell you can fly better than you can follow a post, numb
nuts.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> yedyegiss > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Too much cargo, perhaps.
>>
>> You're an idiot, definitely.
>>
>
> Takes one,...
>
> Bertie

Ya know you are one.............

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:ATK0k.3160$t07.1131
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1rps9$7ps$1
>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>>> yedyegiss > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Too much cargo, perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> You're an idiot, definitely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Takes one,...
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, disregard.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I sure hope to hell you can fly better than you can follow a post,
numb
> nuts.
>
>
>

Why, you said i don't fly anyway, so what's the difference?

Make up your mind fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_TK0k.3161$t07.2969
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> yedyegiss > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>> Too much cargo, perhaps.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot, definitely.
>>>
>>
>> Takes one,...
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Ya know you are one.............
>
>

Kay Peewee.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:RSK0k.3159$t07.473
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Rwm%j.53$kR5.52
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>
>>>> Obviously not. You have caught me at last..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Lame, D-.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Lamer.

Bertie