Supreme Cmdr Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 LMAO!! quote: After every flight, Quantas Airlines pilots fill out a form called a gripe sheet, which conveys to the mechanics problems encountered with the aircraft during the flight that need repair or correction. The mechanics read and correct the problem, and then respond in writing on the lower half of the form what remedial action was taken, and the pilot reviews the gripe sheets before the next flight. Never let it be said that ground crews and engineers lack a sense of humor. Here are some supposedly actual logged maintenance complaints and problems as submitted by Qantas pilots and the solution as recorded by Quantas maintenance engineers. By the way, Qantas is the only major airline that has never had an accident. (P = The problem logged by the pilot.) (S = The solution and action taken by the engineers.) P: Left inside main tyre almost needs replacement. S: Almost replaced left inside main tyre. P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough. S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft. P: Something loose in cockpit. S: Something tightened in cockpit. P: Dead bugs on windshield. S: Live bugs on back-order. P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent. S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground. P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear. S: Evidence removed. P: DME volume unbelievably loud. S: DME volume set to more believable level. P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick. S: That's what they're there for. P: IFF inoperative. S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode. P: Suspected crack in windshield. S: Suspect you're right. P: Number 3 engine missing. S: Engine found on right wing after brief search. P: Aircraft handles funny. S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious. P: Target radar hums. S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics. P: Mouse in cockpit. S: Cat installed. P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer. S: Took hammer away from midget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kschang Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 Uh, SC... There's NO WAY that's from Quantas, since civilian airliner don't have "target radar". Here's the original USAF version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Elio Jason Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Kasey Chang: Uh, SC... There's NO WAY that's from Quantas, since civilian airliner don't have "target radar". You're thinking target in terms of a combat radar. Thats not the term is used in civilian aircraft with a radar system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Kasey Chang: Here's the original USAF version ROTFLMAO!! quote:And the winner is: Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City. In November 2000 Mr Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip on the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr.Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he couldn't actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnie. (Winnebago actually changed their handbooks because of this court case, just in case there are any other complete morons buying their vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Kasey Chang: Uh, SC... There's NO WAY that's from Quantas, since civilian airliner don't have "target radar". You're thinking target in terms of a combat radar. Thats not the term is used in civilian aircraft with a radar system. Any return on a radar screen can be designated a "target" but a target(ing) radar would more likely be one that takes target data (velocity, closure, and heading) and feeds it to a weapons system computer. If the aircraft had at least four engines, though, it would probably be a bomber. And if it had propellers ... well, maybe it was a Russian Bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Marvin: quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Kasey Chang: Uh, SC... There's NO WAY that's from Quantas, since civilian airliner don't have "target radar". You're thinking target in terms of a combat radar. Thats not the term is used in civilian aircraft with a radar system. Any return on a radar screen can be designated a "target" but a target(ing) radar would more likely be one that takes target data (velocity, closure, and heading) and feeds it to a weapons system computer. Correct. Which is what I said earlier that he's thinking in terms of combat target, which is not how the word target is used in civilian aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kschang Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Marvin: If the aircraft had at least four engines, though, it would probably be a bomber. And if it had propellers ... well, maybe it was a Russian Bear. You forgot transport planes, like C-130 Hercules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kschang Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Kasey Chang: Uh, SC... There's NO WAY that's from Quantas, since civilian airliner don't have "target radar". You're thinking target in terms of a combat radar. Thats not the term is used in civilian aircraft with a radar system. I always thought civvies say "contact" or "hit" instead of "target"... But the point is... This list was ALL over Google. I got at least 100 hits of the same exact list (slight wording variations) attributed to Quantas, RAAF, USAF, or just pilot/maintainence in general. Seems USAF gets more votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Kasey Chang: I always thought civvies say "contact" or "hit" instead of "target"...Yeah. It also looks like the original list has been added to and adapted to suit different aircraft organizations I suppose. A friend sent me the list I posted - and it mentions Qantas. And the link you posted above (with a smaller list), indicates the USAF. Thats the Net for you I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandus Posted July 17, 2003 Report Share Posted July 17, 2003 Those Stella awards are funny. It's also sad to see how F'ed up our legal system is though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreadx Posted July 17, 2003 Report Share Posted July 17, 2003 Well, I hope Mr. Grazinski at least lost his drivers-license and had a warm welcome at a local mental institution. Oh, and I liked to see his judge there too. This person has clearly shown he's not capable of handling a winnie and this judge gives him another one to try again???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kschang Posted July 17, 2003 Report Share Posted July 17, 2003 The guy won't lose his license since he doesn't exist. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/onlyinamerica.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandus Posted July 18, 2003 Report Share Posted July 18, 2003 I'm sorry, that story is true. I heard and DEFINETLY saw that story on the television years back when it happened. No doubt about it. I can't pledge to the authenticity of the other stories on there, but I wouldn't surprised if some of them were true as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kschang Posted July 18, 2003 Report Share Posted July 18, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Bandus: I'm sorry, that story is true. I heard and DEFINETLY saw that story on the television years back when it happened. No doubt about it. I can't pledge to the authenticity of the other stories on there, but I wouldn't surprised if some of them were true as well. Me thinks you confused it with the Simpsons episode, when Bart got himself a driver's license, and decided to rent a car to visit "World's Fair"... along with the rest of his "pals". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted July 18, 2003 Report Share Posted July 18, 2003 ...just to dip in and clarify the radar thing, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm working from memory here... Most commercial airliners don't carry anything other than a doppler radar. Heck, most commercial airports don't have radar at all. They have what looks and acts like radar, but all it's really displaying is returns from transponders. I think I remember hearing that they don't use actual "targeting" radars due to the fact that they would interfere with public services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreadx Posted July 18, 2003 Report Share Posted July 18, 2003 Well, Aramike. You're right (good news ) and you're not so right (not so good news ) Most airports have radar. But it is not necessary for the radar to be on the airport. If there's a high building close by (30 miles is considdered close by), it's better to place the radar on top of that building (it can see more) and then beam the information to the control tower. IFF is a form of radar. It is not a primary radar ( = uses its own energy to get to the target AND back) but a secondary radar (only provides energy for the way to the target; the target will provide the energy for the way back, e.g. it answers the call from the radar-installation) About the interference. You're right. Hospitals and such don't like it when a radarbeam sweeps over them. Hart-monitors go funny when held in a high-energy beam. And the frequencies used in the early days caused interference with tv-broadcast signals. The frequencies we use today cause interference with computer-monitors. But h├®, that's progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 quote:Originally posted by aramike: ...just to dip in and clarify the radar thing, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm working from memory here... Most commercial airliners don't carry anything other than a doppler radar. Heck, most commercial airports don't have radar at all. They have what looks and acts like radar, but all it's really displaying is returns from transponders. I think I remember hearing that they don't use actual "targeting" radars due to the fact that they would interfere with public services. Check this out: Almost anything you ever wanted to know about RADAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grayfox Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 how, in the name of all that is holy, did this turn from a thread about a joke into a damn radar discussion??? sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Grayfox: how, in the name of all that is holy, did this turn from a thread about a joke into a damn radar discussion??? sheesh Hah. This kinda thing reminds me of the good old days, when no discussion was safe from deviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now