rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1697 posts, RR: 1 Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25921 times:
This is one important aircraft that needs to be preserved. Air Canada's C-GAUN 767-200, more famously know as the "Gimli Glider" is being auctioned off soon. The feat the pilots pulled off to get this fuel-starved aircraft safely back on the ground, with no injuries or loss of life is truly amazing, and needs to be celebrated no less than US Airways "Hudson" A320.
skysurfer From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 1138 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25823 times:
Amazing that the pilots got it down safely and that it was able to fly again for many years. I will bid $1 so my soon to be newborn can enjoy it along with myself!
All jokes aside, i hope it is preserved as it's quite a piece of aviation history.
In the dark you can't see ugly, but you can feel fat
Lol, nothing to see here, just a 767 that made a crazy dead-stick landing on an converted military airport that the co-pilot remembered from his Air Force days and they were lucky enough be in range of. Never mind that the nosewheel collapsed and the aircraft skidded to a stop atop a stanchion running down the middle of the piste. Or the most innocuous detail, that the Gimli Glider actually flew away from that field (after repairs).
SpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 2172 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25529 times:
Aviation history, hopefully, will remember what happened that day with that aircraft. Beyond that, I don't see why it should be preserved. It's just an airliner that was involved in an incident. It's more the pilots that should not be forgotten. Otherwise we should also preserve the TS A330 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic.
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2309 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 25369 times:
So a few people want to see the Gimli Glider. Open up your cheque (or check) books and write a sizeable donation. Both for the purchase, transport, storage regime, refurbishment to display state, and then 20 to 30 years of upkeep, share of the overhead such as rent, light etc. and then ongoing maintenance of the display. When you add all that up in cost, is it really worth that? Do a storyboard, a video that plays on a loop, even cut the nose and cockpit off and put it in the Museum and you have the memory of the event at a fraction of the cost.
Unless you work day in and day out trying to get people to help pay for all these great ideas, or nostalgic ideas, you don't have a clue how hard it is to get people to part with their cash. Particularly for museums and displays that don't involve puppies with big eyes and needy children. Those you can rely on people's sympathy and to an extent their guilt. Museums are more cerebral and you have to work much harder.
So here is the challenge to all. Before you say someone "should" do something get your wallet ready and promise a large chunk of cash. Better yet issue a challenge to everyone you know or think would help, and raise the money yourself. Say $2 to $3 Million to cover the cost of the lifetime of the aircraft display. Then you have a right and the motivation for a museum to take on the challenge.
Or even better buy it yourselves, park it outside the museum and open up a Tim Hortons with the aircraft as seating.
rampbro From Canada, joined Nov 2012, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 25344 times:
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9): Otherwise we should also preserve the TS A330 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic.
Not a bad idea to put her somewhere nice, once her career as a tour-bus is over. Infield at YUL comes to mind. Given the hero status Piche and that flight hold at TS, it would not surprise me at all.
There's enough old junk to turn into pop tins. These aircraft are a testament to the fragility of flight and the human condition, and imperfection of human planning and thinking, but also to the force of will and power of intellect of the pilots and those who designed and built the aircraft.
virgin747 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 24601 times:
There was a bit of discussion on the WFP site about this which is oddly powered by demand media.... Otherwise i'll just post my two cents here also.
Shirley Renders says the 767 is not really a great fit into the collection because its still to new, meanwhile theres the spirit of Delta (B767-200) on display and the definitely newer A320 from the Hudson landing. What the article doesnt say is the Muesum is looking to build a new place where the old Winnipeg International is. My opinion is that this 767 would be a great center piece at this Muesum. And just on the side, someone should ask Shirley about the CF-100 sitting outside covered in snow, thats a real shame...
Theres also talk about Air Canada donating it. Air Canada seems to be a company that celebrates itself. The evidence is that there was DC-9s they donated to various technical colleges around the country, the one in Thunder Bay repainted to its original colors. CF-TCC their 3rd airplane in the fleet sits inside the Western Canada Aviation Muesum during the Winter and flies around during the summer raising funds for Dreams Take Flight. Theres other Air Canada planes sitting at Muesums across the country.
Gimli would also be a nice place to see this plane land. But ulitimately it comes to who would be willing to open their pocket book to get it there.
As for the people who think it should be scrap metal, I guess we should also scrap the countless 747s on display and the Concordes.... This 767 has its place in history just like any of those other planes... And the Concorde and the 767 are only 6 years apart.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3353 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 24578 times:
Excuse me, how many B767-200s are preserved? None? If we're going to preserve one, this one has a great story. Is there a more interesting one? Unlikely.
For all those moaning it's just tun of the mill, you're right and will continue to be right until the last one is scrapped.
Skydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1001 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 24506 times:
From Winnipeg Free Press article:
Shirley Render, the museum's executive director, said while the plane landed in Gimli with empty fuel tanks almost 30 years ago, it is still too new for their collection.
"It's too much on what people fly today," Render said.
"Our focus is on the old planes which people don't know too much about... it would be lovely but it wouldn't be on our dream list."
Too new? This is a significant piece of Manitoba aviation history, and April 14 will be the one and only chance to get it. In 10 to 15 years, it might not be considered too new anymore, but if you haven't got it, you haven't got it.
With such an attitude towards this incredible opportunity, Ms. Render should consider stepping down.
Because this airplane is so well-known, I doubt serious bidders for this specific plane will be bidding for scrap. It will be interesting to see where this ends up, but it really should be WCAM in Winnpeg, or Gimli, Manitoba. But obviously any museum is better than GAUN being gone.
US 1549 was historic for a few reasons: it's extremely rare for a jet to encounter a flock of birds and lose not one, but both engines in the incident. The fact that this happened - at such a phase of flight, and over an extremely populated area - with no loss of life, or too many major injuries, made it sensational, and it also highlighted the skill of the pilots as well as the endurance of the aircraft. Remember, it was still largely in one piece even after impact (and yes, I'm aware that that was possible in part to the fact that it was a calm day on the Hudson). In any event, this incident happened through no fault of the airline or its crew. Being able to 'beat the odds' that were thrown at one by nature tends to gain a lot more attention than simply excellent piloting.
After all, deadstick landings happen - and have happened - quite often. The big (pardon the pun) difference between the Gimli Glider and other aircraft was that C-GAUN was much larger. While the pilots in question handled the emergency excellently, fault was found with the airline by Transport Canada, and (as someone else mentioned) AC probably doesn't want to draw too much attention to that.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 24295 times:
Quoting Skydrol (Reply 20): Because this airplane is so well-known, I doubt serious bidders for this specific plane will be bidding for scrap. It will be interesting to see where this ends up, but it really should be WCAM in Winnpeg, or Gimli, Manitoba. But obviously any museum is better than GAUN being gone.
The danger is that it might be purchased for parts. Old aircraft do not have much value as scrap but since there are still a few 762s still operating that need parts. AA and UA are still flying them and UA's may fly a little longer than expected due to the 787 snafu.
Skydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1001 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 23828 times:
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 23): The danger is that it might be purchased for parts. Old aircraft do not have much value as scrap but since there are still a few 762s still operating that need parts.
That is also the way a museum can offset the intial purchase costs - sell off engines, actuators etc. parts that will never be required once the airplane is on display. With the engines and other mechanical parts having been changed several times throughout the life of the airplane, there is no specific historical significance, but in running/rebuildable condition they are far more valuable in dollars than the fuselage (which is the historically-valuable part of C-GAUN). I see no problem with this approach.
Also consider the number of 767-200s being scrapped and available for part-out anyway... there should be no shortage of parts. There are always airplanes being auctioned. The auction for this one made the news for a reason.