Boeing 777 runs out of air

On 18 Jan, 19:41, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:
"Phi" wrote in message

m...

In order to reduce the carbon footprint and the amount of fuel carried on
long haul flights, pilots need accurate (calibrated) fuel gauges.

They would have to have radioed in an emergency (or at least a PAN) if they
were low on fuel and they radioed nothing. *BA sacked a Concorde pilot for
going below 30 mins intentionally.

Apparently the "engines failed to respond". *There are several seconds delay
in the response of large aero engines and this caused the loss of Air France
296 at an airshow at Mulhouse-Habsheim.

Perhaps more likely the engines had been throttled back (on approach!) and
airspeed had dropped too low leading to a stall [warning]. *Once this was
realised they throttled up again and apparently announced they were going
round, but too late to prevent a short landing.

It looked like classic wind-shear... air currents pushing the aircraft
up to pushing it down in very short space, the same wind patterns may
also cause sudden loss of air-speed. The aircraft banking erratically
on approach which may also suggest the same.

The fact the undercarriage was ripped off could be due to landing on
the grass as much as the severity of the landing.

Running out of fuel is also a suspect, but reportedly was not the
case.

wrote in message
...
On 18 Jan, 19:41, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:
"Phi" wrote in message

m...

In order to reduce the carbon footprint and the amount of fuel carried
on
long haul flights, pilots need accurate (calibrated) fuel gauges.

They would have to have radioed in an emergency (or at least a PAN) if
they
were low on fuel and they radioed nothing. BA sacked a Concorde pilot for
going below 30 mins intentionally.

Apparently the "engines failed to respond". There are several seconds
delay
in the response of large aero engines and this caused the loss of Air
France
296 at an airshow at Mulhouse-Habsheim.

Perhaps more likely the engines had been throttled back (on approach!) and
airspeed had dropped too low leading to a stall [warning]. Once this was
realised they throttled up again and apparently announced they were going
round, but too late to prevent a short landing.

It looked like classic wind-shear... air currents pushing the aircraft
up to pushing it down in very short space, the same wind patterns may
also cause sudden loss of air-speed. The aircraft banking erratically
on approach which may also suggest the same.

The 777 is very large and Times descibes the conditions as good visibility
with slight cross winds averaging 18mph. Far too liitle to affect the
trajectory of a large aircraft going nearly ten times that.

OTOH it might have been too close to the plane in front and hit vortexes (as
with AA 587 on 2001-11-12)

The fact the undercarriage was ripped off could be due to landing on
the grass as much as the severity of the landing.

Indeed, heavy aircraft, high descent rate, very wet ground - it will sink in
a long way.

Running out of fuel is also a suspect, but reportedly was not the case.

Possible, but unlikely that both engines would cut out together, and
apparently quite a lot of fuel spilled out afterwards.



One wonders if someone in Club Class was just making that mobile call to say
"I will be home in half an hour dear..."

Chilly8 writes:

One would think that on any transatlantic flight the tanks will filled
to 100 percent of capacity.

That is expensive and usually unnecessary, as modern airliners, including the
777, have very long ranges and rarely need a full load of fuel. Carrying more
fuel than necessary burns more fuel and reduces the usable payload.

"Mr. Travel" wrote in
:

I know it doesn't matter in your simulator game, but in real life,
transporting additional unneeded fuel is expensive.

He's been told that by several people many times.




--

John Kulp wrote:

How do you fly transatlantic from Beijing to London?

Take the scenic route.

--
Mike

"Chilly8" wrote in message
...

You can exceed MTOW and still get in the air safely. Heck, the
Israeli Air Force did it when the bombed the Osirak reactor in
Iraq, back in 1981.

No they didn't.

The extra fuel load they carried, plus
the bomb load did result in taking off at about twice the
maximum rated takeoff weight, but they still got off the ground.
They just had to use more runway and take off at a higher
takeoff speed to get in the air. The planes were way
over MTOW, but they still got into the air.

Dead wrong.

What they actually did was to load all the explosive stuff on board and put
very little fuel in the tanks, just enough to get in the air at maximum
take-off weight.

Then they took off and immediately fueled from waiting tanker aircraft.

You see the safe maximum flying weight is far higher than the maximum
take-off weight.

At the time they didn't tell anyone because it was a tasty new trick, they
just made up a silly tale about long runways and superhuman pilots, but
everyone did it in GW1 and GW2 so it is no longer a secret...


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:56:46 -0800, "Chilly8"
wrote:

In order to reduce the carbon footprint and the amount of fuel carried
on
long haul flights, pilots need accurate (calibrated) fuel gauges.

One would think that on any transatlantic flight the tanks will filled
to 100 percent of capacity.

One would think that the fuel would be calculated so as to be exactly
what was required for the journey plus diversion plus reserve. There
are a number of reasons for not filling an airliner with more fuel
than is required.

--
Cynic

Mr. Travel writes:

I know it doesn't matter in your simulator game, but in real life,
transporting additional unneeded fuel is expensive.

Where did the author of that post mention simulators?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Mr. Travel writes:

I know it doesn't matter in your simulator game, but in real life,
transporting additional unneeded fuel is expensive.

Where did the author of that post mention simulators?


Chilly8 is a simulator retard, just like you. Niether of you know the
difference between flying a real airplane and the pretend "flying" you do
in front of MSFS.

In the real world, flying is not simply setting the autopilot on a
simulator and then stroking your joy stick while a video display flickers
in front of you.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

In message Mr Travel
wrote:

He believes his simulator GAME is more accurate than real life.
He contends he doesn't need a journalist visa to enter a country
requiring them, while covering an event, because it is ok to just aay he
is a tourist.

In another newsgroup he feels that because he can't figure out how to
detect an encrypted VPN/tunnel, no one else can either.