Conference 7.286::digital

    Digital's own version of Hunter S. Thompson has filed his field report,
    dessiminating otherwise unavailable first-hand information to the
    huddled masses.
    
    Thanks, Greyhawk.  Good work!
    
    								Tex

    Once again from the front lines, Greyhawk, alias, "Edward R. Morrow",
    alias, "Walter Cronkite of DEC" has spoken.  Oustanding piece of
    journalism from the country of Bali on what the real boys are thinking.  
    
    And you are right, you can take a nice nap on the Gulfstream IV.  
    
    Mav

    Hmm!  Sounds like the Decathlon flight to Australia, a few back!
    
    Some consolation to us pukes that didn't obtain the necessary altitude
    above DEC, er Digital 100 :-)!!
    
    Good report!

    
    so what's the thingy about Q2 numbers?
    
    AMEX must have block-booked Garuda, eh?? yep, I won't fly
    	it either, will always pick S'pore or Malaysian airlines!
    
    enjoyed the report!
    

    Thanks for the report, enjoyed your insight, Keep it up!

    Thanks for taking the time and notes.
    
    -Bruce
    

>    
>        After two "flights from hell" most of us are back from this year's
>    DECATHLON in beautiful downtown Bali. And while flying 12,600 miles in
>    26 hours is NOT my idea of a relaxing trip, the results were well worth
>    the effort. I even took notes...
>    
Now you know what we antipodeans have to put up with everytime we go north! 

Liked the report,

rgds ted

    Re : Base note
    
    Hey - that was a great report. This report would be a pat on the back
    to the group which organized it. Would even mollify some enraged souls
    who had to put up with a lot of (stuff) [do not want to use the four
    letter word starting with s]. The report is probably the next best
    thing to personal thanks that you could have said.
    
    May there be more such memorable DECathlons.
    
    Congrats to the ones who organized (with all those constraints 8-); ).
    Kudos to the guys who made it to DECathlon 95. Toast to the ones who
    are on their way to DECathlon 96.
    
    Maha

    re: .0
    
    Great note.. there needs to be more reporting of what goes on at
    digital  both inside and outside of the GMA... Bali just happens to 
    be the hotspot of the moment;-)
    
    Thanks for the view and congratulations on the trip...
    
    John W.

    I think.....
    
    MD-11 is a renamed L-1011...much like a DC-10, 2 aisles, 8-9
    abreast...just doesn't crash as much.
    
    MD-80 is a cigar, 5 abreast, but quiet.
    
    Yes?, No?, 
    
    Great report.
    
    gc

re: .10

>    MD-11 is a renamed L-1011...much like a DC-10, 2 aisles, 8-9
>    abreast...just doesn't crash as much.
    
MD-11 is a re-engineered DC-10 - both from McDonnell Douglas.  
The L-1011 was a Lockheed plane, now out of production.

    Mea culpa...
    
    and the md80 used to be a DC 9
    
    Thanks
    
    But I think Greyhawk, based on his description, was on the MD 80  Y/N?
    
    gc

    
    	yup, the MD-80. 2-5-2 seating, just like a Digital part number. Had
    the rare pleasure to sit in the middle of the five for 12 hours
    straight.
    
    	Talk about appreciating getting *off* an airplane....
    
    		the Greyhawk

    My mother-in-law won't get on a plane unless she turns left (& into
    first class)...
    
    Twelve hours is bad enough with "free booze", but in the back?.....
    
    gc

    I love it.... 2-5-2!
    

	The MD-80 isn't 2-5-2. That's the DC-10/MD-11. The MD-80 is
	3-3 I think.

	L1011's are a very nice aircraft. Too bad Lockheed stopped 
	making them.

	I saw a 777 at O'Hare last week. That's one mother of a big
	aircraft. The engines are HUGE!!!

							mike

    Whew!  Thanks, Mike, I was afraid I was losing it.  American uses tons
    of MD-80s.  They're also called "Super-80s", although there's nothing
    super about them.  They're basically a stretch Fokker 100.  I think
    you're right, seating is 3-3...and cramped.  The Fokker is the very
    bottom-of-the-line before the turbo-prop ATRs and Saabs, and the MD-80
    is only one short rung up.
    
    								Tex

    
    	OK, guys - Gauruda Indonesia flies the MD-80 configured for those
    with smaller "frames" than us American male types. And our plane was
    2-5-2 with skinny little aisles on either side of the five seat middle
    config with two "jump" seats on the window sides. Most of us were
    half-crazed after the flight, as you can well imagine. (Try sitting
    in your pre-school kids chair for a comparison)
    
    	All in all, though, Bali was very nice at the resort level. I can
    easily understand why it is so popular with the Australians and
    Japanese. Since the country is very poor, most everything local is
    very cheap in cost. And those Balinese wooden temple masks are just 
    plain beautiful...
    
    		the Greyhawk
    

    Aircraft heritage....
    
    DC-9 evolved to MD-80
    DC-10 evolved to MD-11
    
    Typical MD-80 seating (if like the DC-9) is 2-3.  This is not a
    widebody aircraft -- nothing to do with a Fokker.

Continuing this digression, the MD-80 (aka DC9, Super 80) is a twin-engine
airplane and not certified for trans-oceanic service.  

BobW

re: .20

<< Continuing this digression, the MD-80 (aka DC9, Super 80) is a twin-engine
<< airplane and not certified for trans-oceanic service.  

I think you are implying that no twin-engine aircraft is certified for 
trans-oceanic service.  The Boeing 767 has two engines and is certified.

Have I got this straight? Digital flies it's top performing sales staff on 
aircraft designed to carry six passengers across and one aisle, but 
configured nine across with two aisles, on long haul flights for which the 
aircraft is not certified?

So, if you miss target, presumably you get a wing seat on an Aeroflot 
flight?

Dave.

    And I thought there was some guidelines against putting too many
    important people flying on same flight.  Does that only apply to
    VP's?
    
    - Vikas

	The 777 is also certified for trans-oceanic flight. (and it has
	2 engines)

							mike

The FAA rates commercial aircraft for trans-oceanic use with a term 
that they describe as ESOPS or Extended Single engine OperationS or 
more popularly "Engines Spin or Passengers Swim" :<).

    
    	To continue the rathole, and especially for my own enlightment,
    we flew to Bali on an MD-11 (according to my Group Travel itinerary).
    My belief was also that the MD-11 had good transocean seating. This
    airplane had an engine under each wing and a screwy looking one mounted
    at the base of the tail section.
    
    	The seating was as previously described.
    
    	What the hell were we flying on????
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

>    And I thought there was some guidelines against putting too many
>    important people flying on same flight.  Does that only apply to
>    VP's?

There used to be a limit to the Digital insurance payout for a single accident,
but that's an insurance limit not a P&P limit.  I don't know if that has
changed in the last few years or not.

al

RE: <<< Note 4255.25 by ALEPPO::notbuk.mse.tay.dec.com::Bowker "Joe Bowker" >>>

>The FAA rates commercial aircraft for trans-oceanic use with a term 
>that they describe as ESOPS or Extended Single engine OperationS....

It's ETOPS, for Extented Twin-engine Operations. There are a few levels of
certification available, differing in the time period during which the aircraft
may remain away from land. This ranges from 90 minutes I think as the shortest,
to 180 minutes as the longest currently allowed.

A number of commercial twin aircraft have received ETOPS certification of one
duration or another. The 777 is the first aircraft to be so certified on the
day that it received it airworthiness certificate from the FAA. This was
quite a feat for Boeing and General Electric (I think that was the first
engine manufacturer for the 777). Since then I expect that the 777/Pratt engine
combination has received ETOPS, and soon the Rolls Royce Trent engine
combination should earn its airworthiness certificate and probably ETOPS too.

As you might guess, the ETOPS ratings are heavily dependent on the engines of
the aircraft. The odds of a single engine failure must be low enough so as to
make the odds of a double failure essentially zero.

Many commercial aircraft are sold with a choice of engine types. In some such
cases, the ETOPS certification with one engine may be different than that with
a different engine on the same airframe (and in the extreme an airframe might
only be granted ETOPS with one engine type and not at all with another).

As to the MD-80 vs. MD-11. The MD-11 is a wide-body aircraft, a 2-5-2 seating
arrangement in the main cabin is typical. The MD-11 is a derivation of the
DC-10 series, especially the larger DC-10-40. The MB-80, -85, and -90 (and soon
the -95 I think) are derivations of the DC-9 design. This is a 2-3 or 3-3
seating narrow-body aircraft. It does not have intercontinental range.
						-- Tom

<There used to be a limit to the Digital insurance payout for a single accident,
<but that's an insurance limit not a P&P limit.  I don't know if that has
<changed in the last few years or not.
    
    sooooo, let's put 'em all on one plane, and....
    
    tony

    I wonder which is lower insurance or redundancy?
    
    Hmmm anyone got Aeroflot's number?
    
    Andrew

    Greyhawk
    
    You were on either a DC-10, or it's succesor, an MD-11.  I don't
    understand why McDonnell Douglass changed DC-MD.....
    
    Did it have little winglets at the ends of the wings?...that would be a
    giveaway that it's an MD-11.
    
    Signing out of the rathole
    
    gc

>>    You were on either a DC-10, or it's succesor, an MD-11.  I don't
>>    understand why McDonnell Douglass changed DC-MD.....

DC ==> prefix for aircraft designed and manufactured by Douglas.
	Douglas is in Long Beach and used to be its own company.
MD ==> new prefix to reflect actual company name (McDonnell merged with
	Douglas long ago).  

Employees at St. Louis McDonnell-Douglas, World Headquarters, have long had
a (friendly?) rivalry with the Long Beach contingent.  Commercial (Douglas)
laughs at Defense (McDonnell) during lean times and vice versa.

I think it's an attempt at name recognition and unification, an area we
at DEC... I mean Digital should understand.

JPB
John Brockus, St. Louis SI
McDonnell-Douglas is one of my customers

    The "DC" designation stands for "Douglas Commercial."  They started
    with the DC-1 and went through the DC-10.  Some of the more famous
    models were DC-3 ("Gooney Bird"), DC-7 or 8 (4 engine jet, 1950's,
    competitor to the Boeing 707), DC-9 (narrow body, twin engine jet with
    engines mounted on the body, competitor to the Boeing 727) and DC-10
    (wide body jumbo jet, competitor to the Boeing 747 and Lockheed
    L-1011).
    
    In the mid 1960's, McDonnell Aircraft acquired Douglas Aircraft to form
    McDonnell-Douglas Corporation.  The MD series (that's right -- McDonnell 
    Douglas!) are the new designs from the merged company.
    
    So, DC to MD is a corporate identity thing (sound familiar??)...

    
    	gc -
    
    	Winglets it had... So we *really* were on an MD-11. I'll remember
    never to fly in one of those again.
    
    	Rathole resolved.
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Re: .3
    
    >The "DC" designation stands for "Douglas Commercial."
    
    I don't know much about airplanes, but I've "always" though
    that the 'C' in "DC" stood for "Convair".
    
    ...petri

    Greyhawk,
    
    It'll be ok....just remember to turn left when you get on.
    
    gc

    Sorry Convair was a different company with the nothing to do with DC.

    
    	I should live so long that Digital covers my cost of a first class
    seat :-)
    
    	
    
    
    	Now if I should happen to win the lottery....
    
    
    		the Greyhawk
    
    
    

    Another reason for MD-11 rather than DC-11 might be the fact that the
    DC-10 name was sullied by a spectacular crash in (I believe) the late
    seventies: one of the wing-mounted engines came off during takeoff.
    
    \dave

> one of the wing-mounted engines came off during takeoff.

    taking out the multiply-redundant hydraulic lines all routed through
    the same channed in the wing - leaving the pilot unable to control the
    aircraft, which rolled and ....
    
    in Chicago, I believe.

    many, many years ago (before color had been invented)... I flew for
    Uncle Sam's Canoe Club.
    
    Over water flights, mostly.  In Gooney birds.
    
    Had a friend who refused to fly in them.  He said that he'd fly over
    water if, and only if:
    
    You took the total number of engines on the plane and subtracted one...
    then devided that difference by two.  If the result was greater than
    one, he felt safe.
    
    
    Why, I remember once... had the trailing wire antenna out about a
    quarter mile (I ran CW reports as the radio operator), we nearly
    knocked the stack off a small ship we buzzed with the weight on the end
    of the wire.
    
    and then there was the time that....
    
    
    ;^)
    tony

    re .40
    
    American flight 91, O'Hare to San Francisco.  Summer of 1979 (I'm
    pretty sure).  I lost three friends and co-workers on that plane.  They
    were (are?) still finding debris that was (is) being pushed out of the
    ground years after the crash.
    
    NTSB concluded that faulty maintenance procedures by AA ground
    personnel contributed to the engine separating from the wing.  Check
    old issues of Aviation Week and Space Technology for more research.  
    
    re .41  The DC-3 was and still is ste safest plane ever made with fewer
    accidents per flight mile than any other aircraft.  
    
    

re Note 4255.39 by WHOS01::BOWERS:

>     Another reason for MD-11 rather than DC-11 might be the fact that the
>     DC-10 name was sullied by a spectacular crash in (I believe) the late
>     seventies: one of the wing-mounted engines came off during takeoff.
  
        There have been several spectacular DC-10 crashes -- for a
        variety of design-related reasons.

        Bob

    What a lovely rat-hole...
    
    There is a major business lesson in here somewhere.  I guess there is a
    book or at least a cse study out there somewhere.  The DC10 and
    Lockheed Tristar were competing for the same market niche for a wide
    body aircraft a little smaller than the 747.  The DC10 came out first
    and had a number of major design related crashes.  The Tristar seemed
    to be a "better" plane but never gained sufficient market share.
    
    Lockheed is out of the civil aircraft business and the DC10 lives as
    the MD11.

    The Tri-Star also had a tad bit of a problem on takeoff, if I remember
    right.  Pushing all throttles forward would cause the failure of a
    single engine.  The pilot had to push the wing engines forward then,
    after take-off, push the tail engine.

I was working for Lockheed at the time they shut down the commercial 
airplane operations.

The L1011 was also trying to compete with the 747.
One of the main reasons that it lost out was time-to-market.
One of the main reasons for being late-to-market was that the first
models were tied to Rolls-Royce engines, and R-R had a strike which
was timed perfectly to disrupt the introduction of the L1011.

Boeing and Douglas grabbed the high ground and marketshare, and Lockheed
never recovered.

Kevin

Re .23:

>    And I thought there was some guidelines against putting too many
>    important people flying on same flight.  ...

Yep.  From the Orange Book:
				/AHM

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      PERSONNEL                     | Section 5.17          |
|                 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES            | Effective 17-JUL-95   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Executive and Group Travel Limitations

 SCOPE:  WORLDWIDE

    A serious accident involving a small number of key Company
    personnel could have a serious effect on our ability to conduct
    business.  Because of this risk, group travel in a single
    aircraft should be limited.

  |      o    Each Corporate Management Committee member must monitor
              the travel plans of key personnel within his or her
              organization to prevent the formation of a travel
              group, the loss of which would compromise the
              effectiveness of that organization.

         o    The charter of large aircraft for employee group
              travel should be avoided.  Minor cost savings are
              more than offset by increased administrative workload
              and increased operational and insurance liabilities.

 Executive Travel Limitations

    Individual trips may not include more than the following number
    of executives traveling together on one flight:

  |      o President and/or Corporate Operations Committee Members   2

  |      o Corporate Management Committee                            3

  | No more than two (2) of the direct reports to the President
  | and CEO may travel together.

    It is the responsibility of the Trip Sponsor to review the
    passenger list, to understand and evaluate the risk and of key
    people traveling together.

 EXCEPTIONS:

  | Any exceptions to the Executive Travel Limitations Policy
  | requires approval by the Vice President of Human Resources or
  | Vice President, Finance/Chief Financial Officer.