Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gimli Glider Update And Question  
User currently offlineBodobodo From Canada, joined May 2000, 553 posts, RR: 11
Posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1995 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:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Felix Sieder



My question is would this be standard procedure on a plane that's been retired and waiting for sale or do you think this is the first step towards scrapping or disassembing this plane?

Cheers,
Felix

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

Pretty standard procedure. Esp. if the a/c is going to be ots for a while.There is no point in having a pair of perfectly good engines not in circulation.


It is way way way too young of an aircraft to scrap


When the aircraft is sold they will put a pair of engines back on.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAirsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1800 times:


Looks like we now got a real glider, huh?  Wink/being sarcastic

Daniel Smile


User currently offlineBryston From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1774 times:

I never heard of the Gimli Glider story before. I found this article about it, its a must read!

http://www.frontier.net/~wadenelson/successstories/gimli.html

What a relief the passengers must had when the aircraft was finnally stopped!

Bryston



I'd rather be flying...
User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1752 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<<

Those pilots sure saved the day!  Smile
Iain


User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1735 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
User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Those pilots sure did save the day, but the act of accepting the a/c with more than one fuel quantity system inop was an inexcusable act of negligence.

There is not one airliner/airline I know that allows for more than one tank quantity to be inop requiring a known quantity to be performed.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

FDXmech it all depends on the MEL (minimum equipment list).
I am not sure about airlines, but with general aviation I know they are only required to read empty accurately.
Iain


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24924 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

Has anyone seen the film aout it? I thought the pilots were absolutly brilliant in the way they handled it.


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1719 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.




You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

FDXMech, I think you know more then me, I will now be quiet!  Smile
Iain


User currently offlineAC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1666 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  Smile.


User currently offlineBodobodo From Canada, joined May 2000, 553 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1632 times:

Thanks for the feedback. I hope they do manage to repair C-GAUN and keep it flying.

Cheers,
Felix


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4780 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

I hope it keeps flying, but I also hope AC realizes the historical value of this aircraft and won't have it scrapped at the end.

User currently offlineDl727-200adv From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1617 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.

DL727-200adv


User currently offlineAC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1585 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.

User currently offlineTransat1011 From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1583 times:

Hi:

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.
Best rgds,
F. Meunier


User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1590 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.

User currently offlineC-GRYK From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 751 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Hey wiseguy,
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.

Jeremy



Think before you type!
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1570 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.


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4780 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1555 times:

I don't think there is any ill feeling to AC because of the Gimli incident...it is more a source of pride showing the quality of their pilots. I don't think you understand that.

User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1556 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.


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4780 posts, RR: 23
Reply 22, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1553 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).


User currently offlineAC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1543 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.

User currently offlineC-GRYK From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 751 posts, RR: 36
Reply 24, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1538 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.

Jeremy



Think before you type!
25 Johnnybgoode : saw the movie a few years ago... daniel
26 Slawko : Just one thing to add to the above....This plane did what Boeing said it could not do...TO have a plane this size flying and landing relativly safely
27 Post contains links B744 : The mind boggles at some of the questions (and answers!) posted on this board. Oh well... Here's the article in the Gimli Glider, posted by Bryston re
28 B744 : Sorry about that - was meaning to post it under the 'What happens if 2 engines fail' question!
29 Tom in NO : This brings to mind another successful landing of a jet-powered twin-engined aircraft with out any engine power.....and away from an airport at that.
30 Trintocan : It is sad to see this historic plane grounded, even if it is ostensibly for a D-check. I hope that this plane is restored to service soon. I saw the m
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UA Elite Status Offer And Question posted Wed Oct 19 2005 19:23:54 by N501US
"The Gimli Glider" - Is It Still In Service? posted Sun Oct 2 2005 05:25:06 by Crazyro
Gimli Glider Crew - Where Are They Now? posted Wed Aug 10 2005 20:15:17 by AR385
Air Canada Gimli Glider C-GAUN Schedule? posted Tue Aug 9 2005 22:40:49 by Cdeanda
Gimli Glider posted Tue Feb 1 2005 23:04:20 by Utilianpilot07
Looking Back- Gimli Glider (Indian Version) posted Fri Jan 28 2005 06:11:44 by TKMCE
What Is The Story Behind The "Gimli Glider" posted Sun Nov 28 2004 09:14:47 by Maddy
Intro And Question About MD-88 posted Sat Nov 27 2004 07:43:07 by RyanL1011
Amazing "denied Boarding" Situation...and Question posted Mon Oct 18 2004 04:40:44 by 767Lover
The First GOL 737 And A Question On GIG posted Thu Aug 12 2004 05:48:24 by RCS763av