Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:54 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 49):
If one looks from the Extreme outboard corner of #2 Window,the Wingtip is visible.Our crew keep a cross check when lining up with the bay/stand/gate along with a thumbsup from wingwalker positioned at the sides in case of doubt due to equipment placed at adjacent bay.

With the window open, yes, I would then agree with you 100%
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
speedbird128
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:30 am

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:47 pm



Quoting Analog (Reply 35):
Why not use fancier version of car parking/cruise control aids

Why not use his eyeballs. Hell - didn't he notice his environment when he taxiid onto the apron?

And for those obsessed about wingwalkers etc etc - this is Africa: we're thankful for (1) concrete ramps, and (2) JetA1.
A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:45 pm



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 50):
With the window open, yes, I would then agree with you 100%

no With the #2 Window closed & locked.

regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
Analog
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:24 am

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:54 pm



Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 51):

Quoting Analog (Reply 35):
Why not use fancier version of car parking/cruise control aids

Why not use his eyeballs. Hell - didn't he notice his environment when he taxiid onto the apron?

Well, the same logic works for drivers parking their cars. Obviously commercial pilots are, on average, a more competent bunch than the average driver, but accidents do happen.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:26 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 52):
no With the #2 Window closed & locked.

No, you can't...period. Not on a classic 737. On a 737NG, maybe....
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
vxg
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 12:31 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:00 am

There was another version of this thread in the Civil Aviation forum where I posted the taxi track superimposed on the Google image of the ramp in Lusaka. My attempt is to present a reasonable picture of the route the aircraft took. Of course we don't know if he was marshalled on the wide turn or if the pilot elected to take it himself since there were no planes parked on the adjacent stands.

Link to Lusaka ramp

VxG
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:56 am

VxG,
There's only 1 correction to be made IMHO on that superimposed taxying path... that is the aircraft ended up not as per you indicated... but a few meters further to the east. Look at the curved centerline and where the wing is... and where the wing is in relation to the double zebra crossing.

What I got was the same in relation to how close to the edge the aircraft was. I haven't done further measurements though to verify the span of the wing to find out how close to the edge he was.

Good job nonetheless !

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
vxg
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 12:31 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:50 am

Mandala - you're right, thanks for that. In fact if you look closely you can see that the normal parking spot for the 3rd stand is indeed a little further to the east of where the plane is parked in the picture. For some reason on the day the satellite image was taken, an aircraft was marshalled a little to the left of the normal parking location.

Now this brings up something interesting in the satellite image. If an aircraft attempted to park in the 2nd stand would it risk clipping wings on its way out because the aircraft in the 3rd stand is parked a few meters to the left of where it should be! Perhaps Lusaka is a place where wing-clip accidents just are waiting to happen.

VxG
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:36 pm

VxG, Nurries...

I think the parking spots have adequate clearance for widebody aircraft... provided they're all parked either on the actual stand's nose out line...

Well, in the video, there was a 732 that was parked on stand 2 after the ZA 737 parked.

Anyways... From the 1st inside concrete slab gap, there's 16.5 meters to the parking white line.
From the outermost curved taxy lines to the parking white line is only 15 meters...

The wingspan of the 738 without the winglets is how many meters?
Type: Wingspan / Halfspan
732: 25.35m 12.68m
734: 28.88m 14.44m
738: 34.31m 17.16m (with winglets
320: 34.09m 17.05m

Following the slab gap, or the lining up the outer arc of the parking turn lines, you'd be OK on the 732 and 73classics, but not on the 738 or 320...

Maybe the captain was a former 732/734 visitor to Lusaka *grin*
At least we know he was <18 meters to the white ground vehicle parking line!

Those parking lines were designed so that if you follow them, no part of your aircraft would leave the apron onto the vehicle parking area.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 51):
And for those obsessed about wingwalkers etc etc - this is Africa: we're thankful for (1) concrete ramps, and (2) JetA1.

That's no excuse... either get wing walkers, don't get too close to the edge, or just ignore the marshaller and watch your wingtips!

On one assignment I spent a few months at an airport designed for 6 F28s in self manouvering, (parrallel parking), and they ended up using it for 8 732s... wing walkers were necessary! Their record was 9, even the airport chief went to the airport as a marshaller (he is also qualified for that, from the past) and wing walker... heck, a few times I was even put in as a wing walker for a jet (once, I needed him to depart safely as he was blocking the way for my aircraft). A few near incidents happened at that airport. So whenever someone was going into the parking stand on the terminal side, all vehicles would stop before the marshaller... especially the fuelling trucks!!!!

Over here, we're thankful for the same thing! Why? At some places, we're worse than Africa... that particular airport was probably worse than Lusaka at one stage... I've had my car almost blown over by a 732, and had seen careless things such as a 737 blowing someone's engine cover onto the runway!

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
vxg
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 12:31 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:12 am

Mandala - great post & thanks for the detailed explanations.

I found this document on the Boeing site - http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec4.pdf that describes the turning characteristics of various 737 models. If you look at page 20 it shows a good diagram of the wingtip path of a 737-800 w/ winglets through a 180 degree turn. From my layperson's point of view, it looks like if the pilot had followed the 'official' taxi line and performed the ~120 degree turn to park on that stand, the wingtip would not have extended more than ~10 m beyond the furthest extent of the yellow line. Then he probably would not have hit the catering truck.

I'd really like read your take on this if you don't mind?

Best regards,
VxG.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:00 am



Quoting Vxg (Reply 59):
From my layperson's point of view, it looks like if the pilot had followed the 'official' taxi line and performed the ~120 degree turn to park on that stand, the wingtip would not have extended more than ~10 m beyond the furthest extent of the yellow line. Then he probably would not have hit the catering truck.

Well, the documents are called the airport compatibility documents aren't they? Hence...

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 58):
Those parking lines were designed so that if you follow them, no part of your aircraft would leave the apron onto the vehicle parking area.



Quoting Vxg (Reply 59):
I'd really like read your take on this if you don't mind?

You already nailed the coffin... You need me to cling wrap it too?

I just did those measurements because they weren't in a turn that would qualify a <10m beyond the taxy line wing movement... What I personally would like to know is... what reasoning did he have to go that close to the edge... because who knows, some other crew might have the same reasoning while taxying next to a fuelling truck.

What I find amazing is that some flight crew (regardless of country), do forget certain things that are not "critical", such as wing clearances... I know some who forget the logic of turns and wing clearances, some forget other things. Should we panic? no...
They're not idiots, but they're just humans, they can't remember everything... that's why they carry the damn manuals onboard. Then again, they can't have all the manuals onboard (you don't want them lunging around a maintenance manual do you?) that's why they have dispatch frequencies... And even if they do carry everything, if they forget something, there's already a gap in your safety loop... hence you need safety systems, that is to learn from mistakes and not repeat them yourselves, and yes, carry the manuals on board. I'm sure this incident will be at least a reminder for some flight crew to look at wing clearances and turning characteristics.

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:51 am

I'm still Wondering if the crew did not stop after the collision was deliberate.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20219
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:54 am



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 61):
I'm still Wondering if the crew did not stop after the collision was deliberate.

Did they even notice? That's not entirely clear.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:07 am



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 62):
Did they even notice? That's not entirely clear.

Whats worrying is that it could have struck more inboard ,causing a fuel leak.
That could have been serious with Idling Engines.

regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20219
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:15 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 63):
Whats worrying is that it could have struck more inboard ,causing a fuel leak.
That could have been serious with Idling Engines.

Sure. But then again if the truck had been closer to the fuse the risk of collision might have been more obvious to the pilots. As the incident happened, it was a pretty marginal thing relative to the total half-span.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:22 pm



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 64):
As the incident happened, it was a pretty marginal thing relative to the total half-span.

But an Impact & its effects can never be imagined.On an Impact,Inspection is necessary prior to continuation.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:15 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 63):

Whats worrying is that it could have struck more inboard ,causing a fuel leak.
That could have been serious with Idling Engines.

It would have to be a pretty impressive impact to actually tear the wing box open. You'd certainly crush the slats and fixed leading edge, but there's quite a bit of material to go through before you get to the fuel tank. The drain paths are also designed so that normal sized leaks don't get to the engine hot parts. So yes, definitely a risk, but airplanes whap things with the body of the wing on a pretty regular basis and a fuel fire is almost unheard of in those situations.

Tom.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:25 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 66):
The drain paths are also designed so that normal sized leaks don't get to the engine hot parts.

Agree & in this case a Wing Fence is present too.I was thinking more of a lower wing impact causing a leak.

To rephrase.....Why did the Pilot not stop.Was He not Aware.He presumed it was not serious.

Whats SOP like.Out here if its any abnormality Stop & Investigate.Hence its surprising.

regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:48 am



Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 51):
And for those obsessed about wingwalkers etc etc - this is Africa: we're thankful for (1) concrete ramps, and (2) JetA1.

Oh, so you would rather have damaged airplanes like in this situation. This is not about 'obsession' as you put it. It is about SAFETY, not only to aircraft and GSE, but also to personnel and pax. Having wingwalkers on the ramp goes a long way..... You get the idea. There is no 'obsession' here, Speedbird128.

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 58):
Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 51):
And for those obsessed about wingwalkers etc etc - this is Africa: we're thankful for (1) concrete ramps, and (2) JetA1.

That's no excuse... either get wing walkers, don't get too close to the edge, or just ignore the marshaller and watch your wingtips!

Thank yoy, Mandala! I rest my case! (Great post, btw!)
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:42 am

In Aviation There is no Second chance...Thats the way Thinking should be.

Safety 1st.....Nothing else matters.

regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:48 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 69):

 checkmark  Agreed! You summed that up in a nutshell!  wave 
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
Analog
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:24 am

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:05 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 69):
Safety 1st.....Nothing else matters.

Ummm, no. That attitude is a great way to make something too expensive for anyone to pay for, and is often tantamount to banning the activity in the first place. Take this attitude with flying and more people will drive, resulting in a net decrease in safety. You can take this attitude and apply it to driving, with the goal of a 99% reduction in road deaths. That is basically achievable, but the cost would be way too high (massive cars costing a fortune, guzzling fuel, driving really slowly, etc.).

Is it worth spending a 1 billion USD to implement something that is expected to save one or two lives? No (unless it's my life). Is it worth spending 1 million USD? Probably. Is it worth spending 10 USD? Yes.

You have to balance safety with other factors: cost, convenience, comfort, etc. (all of which can be calculated as costs).
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:06 pm



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 48):
On a 732, no you can't. The wing is too short. If you smear your face against the cockpit windows, you might be able to see very little of the wingtips. I know this from experience, I've worked in 732 & 734 cockpits. Now, the 737NG type aircraft (longer wings), I am not really sure but I am assuming you can with the winglets installed, in this case with the aircraft in question.

Are you sure? It's been a while since we've had any, but from the few thousand hours I have in the 732, I don't remember NOT being able to see the wing tip. It's been so long that I could be mistaken, but I could swear I remember looking out at those wings in flight. The 300/500/700 (with or without winglets) I can assure you that they are easily seen.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:29 pm



Quoting Analog (Reply 71):
You have to balance safety with other factors: cost, convenience, comfort, etc

No Way.There is no Compromise on Safety.
Yes there can be compromise on the other factors you mentioned.But if something is Unsafe its no go.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 54):
No, you can't...period. Not on a classic 737. On a 737NG, maybe....

Im sure it can be seen on the NGs.
About the Classics I def think so too.But since you are so confident.I'll double check at work.I remember crew of B732SF able to view the Wingtip while taxiing into the stand though.

regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
Analog
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:24 am

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:03 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 73):
No Way.There is no Compromise on Safety.
Yes there can be compromise on the other factors you mentioned.But if something is Unsafe its no go.

Then you should never fly. The only way not to compromise on safety is to not engage in the activity at all. Safety is not an absolute; it's a relative thing. You ALWAYS have to compromise on safety; there are ALWAYS things that can be made safer.

There are probably thousands of failure mechanisms for an aircraft, airport security, etc. that the aircraft designers and regulatory agencies are full aware of, yet do fix. Why? Because addressing those safety problems would be too expensive or make air travel too difficult.

An example: it would be harder to smuggle weapons or bombs on board passenger aircraft if bags were shipped on separate aircraft (i.e. no carry-on, all bags are sent via FedEx/UPS) and all passengers had to fly naked. That would be safer than the current way of doing things, so someone who does not want to compromise on aviation safety should support this. That's the kind of absurdity that results from being unwilling to compromise on safety.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20219
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:15 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 73):
Quoting Analog (Reply 71):
You have to balance safety with other factors: cost, convenience, comfort, etc

No Way.There is no Compromise on Safety.
Yes there can be compromise on the other factors you mentioned.But if something is Unsafe its no go.

Mel, what Analog is saying is that at a certain point you reach a cost that makes flying not worth it. There is no such thing as perfect safety. The only perfectly safe flight is the one that never leaves the ground.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:28 am



Quoting Analog (Reply 74):

An example: it would be harder to smuggle weapons or bombs on board passenger aircraft if bags were shipped on separate aircraft (i.e. no carry-on, all bags are sent via FedEx/UPS) and all passengers had to fly naked.

Analog....I get what you are trying to say.....However I feel the existing mechanism in place is NOT a compromise on safety,it is safe,however it can be improved upon if your suggestions mentioned are followed.But currently its safe & NOT UNSAFE.Thats my arguement.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 75):

Mel, what Analog is saying is that at a certain point you reach a cost that makes flying not worth it. There is no such thing as perfect safety. The only perfectly safe flight is the one that never leaves the ground.

Agreed with the last line there.Nothing moves,nothing breaks.And Airlines do balance costs with Safety improvements,but its safety improvements beyond an already safe point & not unsafe.

regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:27 am



Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 72):
Are you sure?

Oh, I'm pretty darn sure.

On the NG's, yes you can. The wings are longer, even without the winglets.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:26 am



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 76):
Analog....I get what you are trying to say.....However I feel the existing mechanism in place is NOT a compromise on safety,it is safe,however it can be improved upon if your suggestions mentioned are followed.But currently its safe & NOT UNSAFE.Thats my arguement.

If it was safe, we wouldn't have accidents. Safe and unsafe are binary terms that a misused in an analog situation. Safe and unsafe don't really have any concrete meaning with regards to aviation, there's just more and less risk. We, somewhat arbitrarily, say that anything with a probability of 1 x 10^-9 per flight hour is "safe" but that's just a terminology convenience. 1 x 10^-10 is ten times safer! But you have to draw the line somewhere.

Tom.
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:55 am



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 77):
Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 72):
Are you sure?

Oh, I'm pretty darn sure.

On the NG's, yes you can. The wings are longer, even without the winglets.

Man, I hate to say it, but after talking with some of my buds who flew the -200 even longer than I, we all remember being able to see the wing tip from the cockpit. Wingspan on the -200 is 93ft, the -300 is 94' 9". When I look out a -300, I know I'm seeing more than 1' 9", so the assertion that the -200 wing is too short doesn't, well, add up  Wink

Hawk, did you take a peek at work?
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:46 am



Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 79):
Hawk, did you take a peek at work

Currently on Vacation.Will check in a few days def.

regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:20 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 80):
Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 79):
Hawk, did you take a peek at work

Currently on Vacation.Will check in a few days def.

regds
MEL

Good for you - enjoy your time off. I just remembered about an all too common MEL that we had on -200 (27-4 I think) that related to the Leading Edge Flap in Transit light being inop. It, among other things, required a pre-departure visual inspection from the cockpit of the LED's. I remember this MEL only being applicable to the 2 most outboard LED's because they were the only ones visible from the Flight Deck. I can also recall cycling the Wing Anti Ice and watching it do it's job. Sorry Airframe, but unless there's some major difference between the a/c you work on and the ones we flew at WN, those -200 wings are definitely visible from the front end.

Sorry about the thread creep.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Who's In Trouble After This Incident?

Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:29 pm



Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 81):
required a pre-departure visual inspection from the cockpit of the LED's

Out here Part of the Engine start callouts prior to Taxi is a confirmation from Grd crew that LEDs are Extended.Its SOP.

Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 81):
Good for you - enjoy your time off.

Just a long Vacation from Christmas. wink 

regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DH106, StTim and 16 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos