Bodobodo From Canada, joined May 2000, 553 posts, RR: 13 Posted (12 years 2 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
I thought people might want to know what's happened to the Gimli Glider since AC retired it. It's stored in a compound at Dorval airport in Montreal. They've now removed the engines and seem to have done some other work to it especially along the tail. Here's a photo taken a few days ago:
Iainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1138 times:
>>An amusing side-note to the Gimli story is that after Flight 143 had landed safely, a group of Air Canada mechanics were dispatched to drive down and begin effecting repair. They piled into a van with all their tools. They reportedly ran out of fuel en-route, finding themselves stranded somewhere in the backwoods of Manitoba<<
Slawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
Gimili is actually not one of the planes for sale...the plane is no longer airworthy as it has suffered from some serious rusting along the spine of the aircraft. and AC has just decided to pull the plane from service all togther....thats why I think it should be donated to a museum and AC can write the air plane off and get the money back from the government.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 38 Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1105 times:
The MEL, although I didn't specifically say it, is to what I'm referring to. Having one fuel tank quantity system inop is a relatively common problem which can be MEL'd albeit sometimes with operational restrictions depending on what tank and what aircraft we're talking about. But should a second tank quantity suddenly develop problems, the aircraft is grounded until at least one of the fuel quantity systems is fixed.
AC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1052 times:
One of the fuel quantity indicators was actually working when the aircraft left YEG on the previous flight, but at YUL the mechanics looked at the problem and tried to diagnose it, and when doing so they left the second (faulty) system with the switch in the "on" position, which faulted the whole thing. With neither of the indicators working, they never should have left, but then the flawed manual drip was carried out which sealed the disaster.
As to the fate of 604, I heard that it's going to be parked for the next few months, and will undergo some heavy repairs due to the keel beam corrosion. I have heard that it may, however, return to service then, if it is needed .
Dl727-200adv From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1003 times:
Isn’t this aircraft a little young to have such severe corrosion that it would be cheaper to scrap rather than repair? Are most 767’s of this vintage so prone to similar severe corrosion? Or is this more of a reflection on AC’s maintenance program? DL, AA & UA have older 767’s of similar vintage & I have not heard of plans to retire them anytime soon.
AC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 971 times:
Dl727-200, actually AC's maintenance program is excellent, and this corrosion isn't the only reason the aircraft is grounded - the aircraft is also due for a heavy check (when these sorts of problems are normally addressed). The check is being delayed (until June is when I heard) and the the fate of 604 will be decided then, as AC is still considering it's requirements.
Transat1011 From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 113 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 969 times:
I went a few weeks ago to the AC Maintenace base and msn 604 C-GAUN was there along with another 767 and an A340.
I was told (or maybe I misinterpreted) that C-GAUN was simply in D check and due to the overcapacity of Air Canada, the check will take a bit longer. Furthermore, I saw the engines were taken off but they are well identified in the AC hangar and not for use on another aircraft, at least for now.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 19 Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 976 times:
CPDC10-30 - why would any company want to memoralize a historical fu*k up? The plane ran out of gas, fer chrissakes. It would be like Delta enshrining the burned out tail section of flight 191, or Southwest opening a museum for the Burbank accident airplane.
C-GRYK From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 751 posts, RR: 41 Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 957 times:
Maybe because they safely landed a 767 that was out of fuel, because no one died, because the pilots tried damn hard and succeeded, because it's quite a feat to control let alone land a 767 glider, because it wasn't a write off, and it's a tribute to the skill of the pilots.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 19 Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 956 times:
Then....put up a bust of the pilots in Montreal. But, for what it's worth, it's the responsiblity of the pilot to make sure that the aircraft has enough fuel to make it to it's destination. Through a sequence of errors, it didn't.
No matter how "historic", it isn't really a great idea, public relations wise, to create a monument to what amounted to an error on the part of the airline.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 942 times:
Perhaps not to some aviation enthusiasts. But have a tribute of an aircraft for a nervous flyer to see and explain that it ran out of gas. They won't take comfort in the skills of the pilots - they will be even more anxious - hoping that their flight has enough fuel.
That's why I don't think you'll ever see an airline do something to publicize that problem. What kind of impact (no pun intended) do you think it would have if UAL played Rhapsody in Blue while showing films of UAL232 tumbling thru a cornfield. Were it not for the skill of those pilots, everyone on board would have been killed. They don't do it because airlines don't really want to play up "our pilots averted disaster", rather they would focus on a big comfy first class seat with a blanket and your own private, fully attentive hostess.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 939 times:
Of course it wouldn't be displayed by AC...I was thinking more of the Canadian Aviation museum. As Slawko has said, companies get a tax write-off when making a donation to a charitable foundation. Heck, you can donate your old Buick to the Kidney foundation and they'll give you a tax receipt for that too.
I think it would be a big draw. Now if only they would repaint it to the 1983 colour scheme.
Goingboeing: I think it would be inappropriate to showcase an airplane when people were injured. But no one was (except for minor injuries on the slides).
AC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 929 times:
Goingboeing, while certainly crashed airliners aren't something anyone wants to remember, the Gimli Glider isn't like DL191 or anything... why? Well, although 604 was involved in an incident people would rather didn't happen, it also has almost a legend attached to it. Aviation spotters recognize it. But furthermore, while the flying public may not be able to pick it out of a line, they are aware of it enough that if someone identified it for them, they'd know exactly what it was. And wouldn't feel at all scared to fly in it. In fact, I think most people would want to fly in it, it just has that legendary sort of feel to it. And that's to a large amount among AC employees, as well. It's a favorite, because of the story behind it, and because things that went disasterously wrong at 30,000' came to a safe conclusion. It's a tribute to safety, not to disaster.
C-GRYK From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 751 posts, RR: 41 Reply 24, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 924 times:
WELL SAID AC183, hopefully that will shed some more light on the issue to Goingboeing. When my buddy Mickey lent me the book on the disaster (I can't remember the name, but it was around 200 pages or so with the foreward by Bob Pearson), I could not put it down, I read it in about 5 hours, it is a great read for any aviation enthusiast.