chain of events

"KM" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 8, 11:38 pm, "F. Reid" wrote:
On Mar 8, 10:18 pm, "KiloMike" wrote:



What a stupid response to a great story. I have read your postings
before. Classic troll. Go away.
.It is obvious most of this story is
either embelished or made up.Let me spell it out for you;First, tell
me the last time you got 25R at LAX 30 miles out on the Civet.Could
happen I guess, but I have never seen it.Further more, are you gonna
see a transformer go at 30 miles.Do you really think the airport would
go dead (Like the scene in the movie Airplane when the guy in the
tower pulls the plug).If you were the crew of the A340 on a vector to
final would you just fly though final if you had a localizer flag? An
A340 doesnt even need ground based equipment to fly an approach.And
what about their TCAS? I can go on with this but I hope you have the
picture.
Kilo Mike, you should work on recocnizing internet folklore instead
calling people names.

I gotta second what Ried is saying here.How can the radios AND the
Localizer go out long enough for this to happen.The Civet is for 25L
not the right.
This sounds like a fish story to me.I think KiloMike is a troll and
should go away.


{Plonk} you and Reid for being pretentious assholes

On Mar 9, 6:10 am, "Matt Barrow" wrote:


{Plonk} you and Reid for being pretentious assholes- Hide quoted text -

Matt Barrow, boy are you a dumbass if you think airliners are
actually flown this way.Not to mention a petty jerk off.Are you the
Matt Barrow who got himself fired from a certain commuter airline? It
wouldnt surprise me.
Matt, most people are gonna read this story and enjoy it for its
entertainment value and thats it.Why cant you appreciate that.I once
had an aviation instructor who said you should believe about half of
what you see and 10% of what you read (pertaining to aviation).This
was in the days before internet, so I would add that you should
believe 1% of the stuff you read on the internet.I saw right through
this story and got a good laugh out of it (I think thats what the
original poster wanted).How does this make me an asshole.Matt, you are
a bigger asshole if you think this story is true.

KM wrote:


I gotta second what Ried is saying here.How can the radios AND the
Localizer go out long enough for this to happen.The Civet is for 25L
not the right.
This sounds like a fish story to me.I think KiloMike is a troll and
should go away.
KU




I dont know about the approach itself, but the power issue is very
believable. If the main transformer for the whole place let go, its VERY
likely that it takes 10 or more seconds for the generator to get up and
running. Also, if I understand right, the generators dont serve the
entire airport, just select facilities and one or two main runways.

If such a big flash DID occur, then its likely that other cockpits would
have eyes fixated on it as well.

The only thing that doesn't make any sense.. is why would I only be
reading about it on usenet... and not CNN. A NMAC usually makes big news.

("KM" wrote)
Matt, most people are gonna read this story and enjoy it for its
entertainment value and thats it.Why cant you appreciate that.I once had
an aviation instructor who said you should believe about half of what you
see and 10% of what you read (pertaining to aviation).This was in the days
before internet, so I would add that you should believe 1% of the stuff
you read on the internet.I saw right through this story and got a good
laugh out of it (I think thats what the original poster wanted).


Why no space between your sentences?


Mont Black

In article nk.net,
Dave S wrote:

I dont know about the approach itself, but the power issue is very
believable. If the main transformer for the whole place let go, its VERY
likely that it takes 10 or more seconds for the generator to get up and
running. Also, if I understand right, the generators dont serve the
entire airport, just select facilities and one or two main runways.

An approach system doesn't have a UPS?

--
Bob Noel
(gave up lookingn for a particular sig the lawyer will)

On Mar 9, 9:39 am, Dave S wrote:
KM wrote:


I dont know about the approach itself, but the power issue is very
believable. If the main transformer for the whole place let go, its VERY
likely that it takes 10 or more seconds for the generator to get up and
running. Also, if I understand right, the generators dont serve the
entire airport, just select facilities and one or two main runways.

Dave, you also have to understand that the ATC facilities are at two
separate locations.Try to imagine (even if it did take that long to
restore power) how long it would take to fly from north of the
approach to 24R, then though final, and then across the final for the
south complex (Not diagonally mind you, but on a typicle intercept
heading)? Also, the copilot would have seen the A340 first, not the
captain.If you tried to check in with the tower and got no response,
wouldnt you go back to approach?
The thing that really gives this story away is that there is no way in
hell that a crew would ignore an RA while on an approach to an airport
with similtaneous approaches to parallel runways. Two crews if you
count the A340 guys.

The only thing that doesn't make any sense.. is why would I only be
reading about it on usenet... and not CNN. A NMAC usually makes big news.
This is your next clue Dave.I went back and read some of "Capt Doug's"
posts and he does know a bit about airliners, but his posts show a
lack of understanding of enough of the detail to actually fly
one.Judging from his posts I would say he is probably a flight
attendant at NWA who flys on the side.And I would say he spends alot
of time talking to pilots about flying.

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Then his engine lost power (carb ice?) and he was down
to 200' AGL before he was able to restart it.

Shouldn't that be "induction" icing?

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("KM" wrote)
Matt, most people are gonna read this story and enjoy it for its
entertainment value and thats it.Why cant you appreciate that.I once had
an aviation instructor who said you should believe about half of what you
see and 10% of what you read (pertaining to aviation).This was in the
days before internet, so I would add that you should believe 1% of the
stuff you read on the internet.I saw right through this story and got a
good laugh out of it (I think thats what the original poster wanted).


Why no space between your sentences?

Why no coherence, either?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article nk.net,
Dave S wrote:

I dont know about the approach itself, but the power issue is very
believable. If the main transformer for the whole place let go, its VERY
likely that it takes 10 or more seconds for the generator to get up and
running. Also, if I understand right, the generators dont serve the
entire airport, just select facilities and one or two main runways.

An approach system doesn't have a UPS?

The article said it took a few seconds to kick in.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Then his engine lost power (carb ice?) and he was down
to 200' AGL before he was able to restart it.

Shouldn't that be "induction" icing?

You say to-mah-to, I say, tom-ah-toe.