Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
El Al Plane Almost Takes Off With Open Door- Again  
User currently offlinetodaReisinger From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 2768 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 24275 times:

from Haaretz newspaper:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...ng-takeoff-over-open-door-1.314676



" (...)

An El Al flight made an emergency stop during takeoff after a warning light signaled that a door wasn't closed, Haaretz learned yesterday.

(...)

The incident took place on September 8, around 7:30 P.M, when a Paris-bound Boeing 757 accelerating on the runway suddenly braked and stopped. It then taxied back to the terminal to undergo checks. A passenger asked to disembark due to the emergency stop, and the time needed to locate her suitcase further delayed the flight. Eventually the plane took off without further incidents.

(...)

Earlier, in May 2009, an El Al Boeing 737 with 81 passengers on board took off from Ben-Gurion International Airport with one of its doors not fully closed. This was discovered once the plane was already airborne, and plane turned around and landed safely back at Ben-Gurion.

(...)"




Well, I would also have disembarked..... And I really wonder if it is a wise idea to board an El Al plane nowadays. How is it that an airplane can take off with a door not fully closed? What can we expect from an airline if it is not even able to respect the most fundamental and basic safety precautions? It sounds incredibly ridiculous.

Why did the pilots "notice" the problem only during (or even after) take-off, and not before, at the latest while taxiing to the runway?



"El Al never compromises on flight and passenger safety", the airline says in statement following the incident.

- Sure. Maybe El Al could start CLOSING its airplanes' doors before t/o.


I bitterly miss the livery that should never have been changed (repetition...)
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineplanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 815 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 24247 times:

This is resulting in the minimum of the dispatcher, first officer and captain not noticing.

Worrying.


User currently offlineETinCaribe From Ethiopia, joined Dec 2009, 717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 23980 times:

Which door was it BTW? Passenger loading door or cargo?

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12322 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23734 times:

Quoting planesailing (Reply 1):
This is resulting in the minimum of the dispatcher, first officer and captain not noticing.

I think we're being a little bit too harsh here; the crew would have done a door check as part of their pre-flights; the flight crew do not check the doors physically; they only see what appears on their displays. They noticed that a door warning light came on during the roll and as a result of this, they aborted - as they should have done. The problem was probably a faulty lock or seal, which caused the warning light to appear and this would be tested and checked by engineers subsequently. I think that Haaretz is being a bit unfair on LY; its headline - assuming this is the actual headline - reads as if the door was wide open, whereas it was only a light that displayed.

Everyone seems to have done exactly what they should have done; every plane in the world nearly has an accident every day, but for the professionalism of those flying/working on them; this flight was no different.


User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1941 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23635 times:

How do you pressurize the cabin with a door open or attempt to and not notice it?

User currently offlineilovepabst From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23518 times:

Quoting ETinCaribe (Reply 2):
Which door was it BTW? Passenger loading door or cargo?
Quoting milesrich (Reply 4):
How do you pressurize the cabin with a door open or attempt to and not notice it?

I am quite certain this is media hype and not a passenger plane taking off with a door open. More than likely it is the cargo door sensor warning. Although not an everyday occurence, the sensor will from time to time show a fault indicating an open door when it is simply a sensor contact problem.


User currently offlineMCO2BRS From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23472 times:

Ok just playing devils advocate here, since there isn't a whole lot of info in the posted news source... could this just have been a faulty indicator? The article doesn't state whether the door was actually found to not be secure.

Cheers

MCO 2 BRS


User currently offlineetherealsky From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23418 times:

Quoting todaReisinger (Thread starter):
I really wonder if it is a wise idea to board an El Al plane nowadays.

Now that's a bit of a foolish thing to say, don't you think?

Quoting todaReisinger (Thread starter):
How is it that an airplane can take off with a door not fully closed?

What makes you so sure that it wasn't simply a faulty indication?

Quoting milesrich (Reply 4):
How do you pressurize the cabin with a door open or attempt to and not notice it?

I don't know the specifics of the 757 pressurization system, but airplanes aren't technically "pressurized" on the takeoff roll. Pressurization begins as the aircraft climbs and ambient atmospheric pressure decreases (thus the cabin pressure is higher than ambient pressure). On the runway surface, the pressure inside the cabin is the same as pressure outside the cabin (a 1:1 pressure differential). The cabin pressure will never be greater than the atmospheric pressure of the departure point.



"And that's why you always leave a note..."
User currently offlinetodaReisinger From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 2768 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23375 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 3):
They noticed that a door warning light came on during the roll and as a result of this, they aborted - as they should have done. The problem was probably a faulty lock or seal, which caused the warning light to appear and this would be tested and checked by engineers subsequently. I think that Haaretz is being a bit unfair on LY; its headline - assuming this is the actual headline - reads as if the door was wide open, whereas it was only a light that displayed.

Of course the airplane did not take off with a "wide open" door....!

But, a "faulty lock or seal" can precisely be the source of a catastrophe.

And, if it was only a faulty indicator, it still does not explain why the pilots noticed it in the middle of the take-off and, in a former occurence, while already flying.

Quoting ilovepabst (Reply 5):
I am quite certain this is media hype and not a passenger plane taking off with a door open. More than likely it is the cargo door sensor warning.

Again - aren't that kind of fundamental issues checked BEFORE take-off?



I bitterly miss the livery that should never have been changed (repetition...)
User currently offlinefilejw From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23278 times:

I have on more than one occasion had door warning lites flicker as i rolled the down runway. As mentioned before usually a sensor problem.it Probably wasn't noticed before because it wasn't on.

User currently offlineetherealsky From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23258 times:

Quoting todaReisinger (Reply 8):
And, if it was only a faulty indicator, it still does not explain why the pilots noticed it in the middle of the take-off

There are multiple things that could have happened to trigger a fault indication in the middle of a takeoff roll. Without knowing anything about the physical design/installation of the system we aren't qualified to make assumptions. Perhaps a simple microswitch is used and the vibration of the takeoff roll caused it to come loose or caused the contacts to open up. Maybe a latching mechanism failed, or dirt got into the sensor and caused an open circuit condition. Who knows?



"And that's why you always leave a note..."
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 23069 times:

Door indication failures are a common cause of aircraft delays. Doors are often in the top 10 (among ATA chapters) causes for delays. It is often split fairly evenly between passenger door and cargo door indication. Equally as big of a problem is door arming. However, I am a bit surprised that the plane had an RTO over door indication. I would have thought that the indication would have been noticed before a takeoff configuration warning light went off. Even though it is a refused takeoff, it probably was a very slow speed takeoff. I am guessing that as soon as takeoff thrust was set, the takeoff warning would have gone off and they would have aborted at minimal speed.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21092 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22915 times:

Quoting etherealsky (Reply 7):
I don't know the specifics of the 757 pressurization system, but airplanes aren't technically "pressurized" on the takeoff roll. Pressurization begins as the aircraft climbs and ambient atmospheric pressure decreases (thus the cabin pressure is higher than ambient pressure). On the runway surface, the pressure inside the cabin is the same as pressure outside the cabin (a 1:1 pressure differential). The cabin pressure will never be greater than the atmospheric pressure of the departure point.

Actually, there are several airplanes (at least) that will "pre-pressurize" the cabin while on the takeoff roll (triggered by the thrust levers being set to takeoff power). The pressure inside the airplane will be slightly higher than outside. This is done to prevent a surge in pressure as the airplane starts climbing.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22787 times:

I've read it all. Now door pressure problems are reason to suspect an airline's safety record and you shouldn't board. Unbelievable...

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 22575 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
Door indication failures are a common cause of aircraft delays. Doors are often in the top 10 (among ATA chapters) causes for delays. It is often split fairly evenly between passenger door and cargo door indication.

A few examples from Transport Canada incident summaries over the past year or so. There are many others.

POE258,Porter Airlines DHC 8 402, enroute from Halifax (CYHZ) to Ottawa (CYOW), after departure from Halifax, advised that it was returning due to a door open warning light. No assistance was required. The aircraft landed on Runway 32 at 19:58Z without incident.

Comair CRJ-100ER aircraft, FAA registration N958CA, was operating as COM549 from Halifax to New York. The aircraft departed Halifax at 0658 ADT, and shortly thereafter the crew declared an emergency due to an unsafe door warning. Clearance to return to Halifax was requested and received; the aircraft landed without further incident at 0724 ADT. The flight was cancelled for the day and the aircraft was flown back to the operator's main base unpressurized at 10,000 ft. Subsequent maintenance inspection could not duplicate the problem or identify a cause. The aircraft was released back to service the following day and the problem has not recurred.

ACA689, Air Canada Airbus A319, enroute from Deer Lake (CYDF) to Montreal (CYUL), rejected take off from Runway 25 due to an unsafe door notification. ACA689 advised that it required a few minutes for a temperature reduction on the brakes. ACA689 received clearance Runway 07 and departed without incident at 22:17Z.

Shortly after departing Saskatoon for Winnipeg, the crew of CRJ100 C-FVMD (operating as Air Canada Jazz 8292) noted a pasenger door warning light. Checklist items were completed and the aircraft returned to Saskatoon where an uneventful landing was carried out. A subsequent inspection revealed worn bushings in the L1 Door latch mechanism. The bushings were replaced, the latch cam and torque tube were adjusted and the aircraft was returned to service

FAB 954, a First Air B737-200C, was departing Yellowknife when the crew rejected the takeoff due to an aft entry door unsafe light. Maintenance inspected the door proximity switch and mechanism and the door lock was cycled several times. The fault did not return and the aircraft was returned to service.

The crew of ATLS 39, a Canadian Forces C-130, rejected their take off on Runway 13 at Winnipeg due to an unsecured door indication. No other aircraft were inconvenienced.

Air Canada Jazz CRJ100, registration C-GKEU, operating as flight JZA 8432, was midway between Kelowna and Calgary when the crew observed the main cabin door caution light illuminate. As the flight progressed to Calgary the caution light became a warning light and the crew declared an emergency. All parameters were normal, there was no loss of pressurization or noise and no passenger reaction. The flight landed in Calgary without further incident.

JZA 582, a CRJ 100 operated by Air Canada Jazz, departed Calgary for Regina, but returned to CYYC due to an open door indication.

The crew of ACA 295, an Air Canada A320, rejected their takeoff on Runway 31 at Winnipeg due to an open door indication. No other aircraft were inconvenienced.

Air Canada Jazz DHC-8-301 aircraft returned to Edmonton without declaring an emergency due to a door ajar indication.

WJA 1336, a WestJet B737-700, was departing Winnipeg when the crew rejected their take-off due to a cargo door light indication.

Air Canada Airbus A319 aircraft (operating as flight ACA153) was on a scheduled IFR flight from Toronto (CYYZ) to Calgary (CYYC). The aircraft was in the vicinity of Wiarton when the flight crew reported a door open indication and began an emergency descent. The aircraft levelled off at FL280 as the pressurization appeared not to be an issue. At 0047Z, the flight crew reported everything as normal and continued to destination.

Philippine Air Lines Airbus A340-300 aircraft, RP-C3434, operating as PAL106, took off from Vancouver for Las Vegas. Shortly after take-off the crew received a 1R door warning indication. They decided to return to Vancouver, where the aircraft landed without further difficulty. Maintenance determined that the 1R door sensor was faulty.

AAL1405, Boeing 737-800 operated by American Airlines, was preparing to conduct an IFR flight from Montréal/Trudeau (CYUL) to Miami (KMIA). The crew rejected takeoff on Runway 24L at Montréal/Trudeau, due to an indication of an open door.

JZA 221, a Jazz CRJ 100, was departing Calgary on Runway 16 when the crew rejected their takeoff and exited onto Taxiway C1. DLH 494, a Lufthansa A340, was 2 miles final for Runway 16 and was overshot by the Tower controller. While parked on C1, the crew of JZA 221 informed the Ground controller that the reason for the rejected takeoff was an open door indication.

Cargojet Boeing 757-200, registration C-FKCJ operating as CJT 574, was departing Winnipeg, MB. Shortly after take-off the lower cargo door warning light indicated that the door was not secured. The crew requested a return to Winnipeg. Maintenance determined that the warning was caused by a faulty switch

Air Canada flight ACA 1124, an Embraer 190, C-FNAP, departed Saskatoon en route to Toronto. After takeoff, a passenger door problem was reported to ATC about 30 miles east of YXE, "PAN PAN" was declared and the aircraft returned to Saskatoon. ARFF responded and the aircraft landed without incident. Maintenance determined that the fault was caused by a damaged door deflector which was replaced.

The crew of WJA 545, a WestJet B737-600, rejected their takeoff on Runway 34 at Calgary due to an open door indication.

The crew of JZA 479, Jazz DHC-8-300, rejected their takeoff at Calgary due to an unsafe door indication. Taxied off and departed 5 minutes later.

Air Canada Airbus A320 aircraft (operating as flight ACA461) had just departed on a scheduled IFR flight from Ottawa (CYOW) to Toronto (CYYZ). After take-off, the flight crew advised of an unsecured door indication and requested to return to Ottawa. No emergency. The aircraft landed on runway 25 at 2119Z without incident.

American Airlines Boeing 737-800, flight AAL1045, was IFR from Montreal/Trudeau (CYUL) to Dallas (KDFW). The flight crew rejected takeoff on runway 24L at Montreal/Trudeau due to an indication that a door was ajar. The aircraft took off at 1233Z.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 21997 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
Actually, there are several airplanes (at least) that will "pre-pressurize" the cabin while on the takeoff roll (triggered by the thrust levers being set to takeoff power). The pressure inside the airplane will be slightly higher than outside. This is done to prevent a surge in pressure as the airplane starts climbing.

Completely correct.


The 757 is certainly one of these, as is the 767. In fact every jet transport I have flown, pressurises slightly on the ground before take off for the reason Mir well describes.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19966 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
A few examples from Transport Canada incident summaries over the past year or so. There are many others.

It should be noted that the original poster slams EL AL, and Israeli aviation in general whenever possible. It should also be noted that the news publication named in this thread has been known to go to press with less than all the facts (and that’s putting it mildly.)

It is nice to see others who have subsequently posted other similar events to show that this kind of incident is common throughout the world. It would also be nice in the future to see threads from this author based on facts rather than sour grapes.



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offlineJBLUA320 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3175 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19799 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):

The 757 is certainly one of these, as is the 767. In fact every jet transport I have flown, pressurises slightly on the ground before take off for the reason Mir well describes.

Pardon my technical ignorance... Can this pre-pressurization system be the reason why the indicator light tends to illuminate on the take-off roll?


User currently offlineetherealsky From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19547 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):

I stand corrected; thanks for clarifying  

But wouldn't pre-pressurization cause an even greater 'surge' because the differential would be that much higher? If anything I would have expected that the aircraft would be de-pressurized a bit to make the transition smoother.



"And that's why you always leave a note..."
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19413 times:

Quoting JBLUA320 (Reply 17):
Pardon my technical ignorance... Can this pre-pressurization system be the reason why the indicator light tends to illuminate on the take-off roll?

What indicator light are you referring to ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19214 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
However, I am a bit surprised that the plane had an RTO over door indication

How close to takeoff speed were they? Its one thing if it was a couple mph below V1 and if it was only at 80mph or some other speed that required little in the way of agressive braking.


User currently offlineq120 From Canada, joined Aug 2008, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18091 times:

Quoting todaReisinger (Thread starter):
Sure. Maybe El Al could start CLOSING its airplanes' doors before t/o.

You really need to know what your talking about before you start bashing an airline.
Your not an eye witness, you werent on the plane, your just reading this nonsense from the media.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
A few examples from Transport Canada incident summaries over the past year or so. There are many others.

I think we should completely avoid flying on all those carriers and consider following todaReisingers safety considerations.



However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 5944 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 17725 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Back in 2000, I was flying DL, ATL-RIC, on an MD-80 series and I was seated at the back, across the aisle from door L2, on th 2 seat row. Next to me, occupying the window seat was an ASA pilot deadheading, as he wore his ID on his lapel. As soon as we moved from the gate, and engines started, there was something weird with the engine noise. It was simply too loud, and there was something "odd" about door L2, that I can´t really point out.

Since we had been chatting for a while, the ASA pilot knew I was an airliner nut, and he told me "something ain´t right with that door." By that time we were already taxiing and he tried to get the attention of an FA. She came, and he (we) told her our concerns. She basically rolled her eyes and ignored us, mumbling something about "after takeoff the noise will come down". The ASA pilot basically then crossed his arms and bet me that we would be returning after takeoff, and that was the end of trying to play hero with the FA´s.

During the takeoff roll the noise was totally deafening, and sure enough, during climb-out the pilot adressed us through the PA saying there was something wrong with "a" door, and that we would be returning to ATL. We completed a circuit, landed, and went to the gate. Technicias came on board, opened L2 and closed it again. They then left, and we went on our way.

Questions:

1) Can anybody shed light on what was wrong? A theory will suffice.
2) Why would the FA ignore what an ASA pilot, WITH a name tag and ID pinned clearly to its lapel told her?
3) Why was there no indication in the cockpit about that faulty door?



MGGS
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21092 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16929 times:

Quoting etherealsky (Reply 18):
But wouldn't pre-pressurization cause an even greater 'surge' because the differential would be that much higher? If anything I would have expected that the aircraft would be de-pressurized a bit to make the transition smoother.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure. I know that it happens, but I couldn't tell you why. I think it has to do with the movement of the outflow valves, which are linked into the weight-on-wheels sensors. When the airplane is on the ground, the valves are commanded to open to equalize pressure between the cabin and the outside air. When the weight comes off the wheels on takeoff, the valves start to do their job of metering outflow in order to maintain a certain cabin pressure. There would be a perceptible bump in pressure as that happened.

Pre-pressurizing the airplane will prevent that, since once the airplane is pressurized, the air in the cabin is pretty much independent of the air outside - you can move it up or down at any rate that you want, to any altitude you want, so long as the capabilities and limits of the system are not exceeded. Theoretically, the cabin need not climb at all until the max allowable differential pressure is reached - though it makes sense not to do things that way in order to save some stress on the airframe.

It should be possible to keep the cabin at its takeoff altitude throughout the takeoff roll by using the outflow valves. Why it's not done I'm not sure - it might be that it's just easier to do a pre-pressurization. Whatever the reason is, it's a good one, since pretty much all the manufacturers do a similar thing.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineELAL772 From Israel, joined Jun 2008, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16307 times:

Quoting todaReisinger (Thread starter):
And I really wonder if it is a wise idea to board an El Al plane nowadays

maybe we shouldn't fly on Swiss(air), Air France or any aircraft of an airline that has suffered a crash...

Quoting ilovepabst (Reply 5):
I am quite certain this is media hype and not a passenger plane taking off with a door open

  
Haaretz is knows for this.

Quoting etherealsky (Reply 7):
really wonder if it is a wise idea to board an El Al plane nowadays.

Now that's a bit of a foolish thing to say, don't you think?

  
Couldn't agree more...

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 13):
I've read it all. Now door pressure problems are reason to suspect an airline's safety record and you shouldn't board. Unbelievable...

  


25 413X3 : Well if you do that, you only have to worry about the airline of a Jewish nation, which is only 1 company.
26 AustrianSimon : Has anyone checked, whether such a flight even exists at the time provided by Haaretz? Has anyone checked, whether any El Al flight had a sufficient d
27 Post contains images q120 : I was talking about all the Canadian airlines that were mentioned above and I was being sarcastic lol
28 Post contains images rockindokken : Ah, faulty door indications...I know all about those. I work on CRJ200/700/900 and let me tell you, 99% of door warnings and cautions we deal with are
29 Woof : As many other have already stated I would fully expect this to be a faulty indicator. On my final NW DC10-30 flight from MSP > LHR we were well int
30 MQTmxguy : Just so that everybody's on the same page... Pressurization 101: High pressure bleed air from the engine compressor section or APU is ducted through t
31 MQTmxguy : Same thing on the ERJ, except it's cargo door indication is from 2 microswitches. first thing you try is to over-stow the door handle, most of the ti
32 netjets21 : Seems like they would notice when they try and pressurize the A/C.
33 DuckRedbeard : Do we know how much the door was really open? Or did they just get a door indication? I recall a verification flight on an MD-88 that had a (cargo) do
34 etherealsky : I see where you're coming from, the squat switch is probably a big part of it. I just had a look at the 767 computer based training program (original
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...
Flying Car Takes Off With Successful Test posted Wed Mar 18 2009 04:08:11 by Dimodica1
El Al Plane En Route To HKG Lands In Uzbekistan posted Mon Oct 1 2007 18:59:23 by Amirs
Attack On El Al Plane Foiled In FRA posted Mon Nov 20 2006 17:55:34 by BuyantUkhaa
First Thai 777-200ER Takes Off! With Pics posted Tue Oct 24 2006 12:55:29 by Qantas744ER
El Al Plane Looking Like PIA From Distance posted Wed Apr 28 2004 21:41:33 by Airmale
El Al Plane Missed By A Missile Over Ukraine posted Fri Jul 5 2002 10:22:55 by Turin_airport
Report : Virgin In Talks With El Al posted Mon Aug 10 2009 09:43:02 by IAD380
EL AL Adding "low Cost Economy Class" To Its Plane posted Tue Jul 21 2009 00:02:57 by Amirs
Rumor Back Again - EL AL 787 posted Sat Jun 20 2009 08:46:39 by Amirs
EL AL A/C With No Titiles? posted Sun May 25 2008 15:24:50 by SXDFC