Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

[Doug Levy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA

[2G]

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:48:36 PM UTC-7, Doug Levy wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA

That's pretty cartoonish - here is the accident investigation report:
http://data2.collectionscanada.gc.ca/e/e444/e011083519.pdf
The bottom line is that all those involved had exactly zero training in how to do metric fuel load calculations.

Tom

[Steve Bralla]

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:48:36 PM UTC-7, Doug Levy wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA

If anyone wants to read the book about this (Freefall by William and Marilyn Hoffer) just pay for shipping (~$8) I'll send you mine.

Steve

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA

Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
Glider?

The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
Hudson incidents were glider pilots.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[kinsell]

On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA
>
> Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
> Glider?
>
> The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
> time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
> apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
> CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
> Hudson incidents were glider pilots.
>
>

Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
airliners with no power and no loss of life. But none of this is
exactly breaking news.

One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
make the flight. Not the primary cause of the accident, but would have
provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an engine
flame out.

-Dave

[Dan Marotta]

The last Boeing I flew was the 727 and it had fuel gauges behind a panel
on the under side of the right wing.Â* There was also a calibrated drip
stick.Â* I imagine the 767 has similar provisions and I also imagine that
the aircraft's MEL does not include the fuel gauges in the cockpit.Â* But
then I'm just imagining things...Â* In the first article I read about
this incident, a long time ago, they mentioned the inoperative cockpit
gauges and I think it mentioned that the flight was legal with no
in-cockpit gauges.

On 9/27/2020 9:28 AM, kinsell wrote:
> On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA
>>
>> Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
>> Glider?
>>
>> The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
>> time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
>> apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
>> CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
>> Hudson incidents were glider pilots.
>>
>>
>
> Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
> airliners with no power and no loss of life.Â* But none of this is
> exactly breaking news.
>
> One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
> covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
> make the flight.Â* Not the primary cause of the accident, but would
> have provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an
> engine flame out.
>
> -Dave

--
Dan, 5J

[2G]

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 8:28:45 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:
> >
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA
> >
> > Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
> > Glider?
> >
> > The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
> > time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
> > apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
> > CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
> > Hudson incidents were glider pilots.
> >
> >
>
> Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
> airliners with no power and no loss of life. But none of this is
> exactly breaking news.
>
> One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
> covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
> make the flight. Not the primary cause of the accident, but would have
> provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an engine
> flame out.
>
> -Dave

That is covered extensively in the accident report. The pilots violated the Minimum Equipment List, making it an illegal flight. The incident would never have occurred if their fuel computer was working, or if they used the correct specific gravity for fuel (they used the value for lb/l instead of kg/l, resulting in the loading of less than half the fuel required).

Tom

[Dan Marotta]

Yes, now I recall having read that.

On 9/27/2020 10:33 AM, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 8:28:45 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>> On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA
>>> Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
>>> Glider?
>>>
>>> The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
>>> time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
>>> apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
>>> CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
>>> Hudson incidents were glider pilots.
>>>
>>>
>> Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
>> airliners with no power and no loss of life. But none of this is
>> exactly breaking news.
>>
>> One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
>> covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
>> make the flight. Not the primary cause of the accident, but would have
>> provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an engine
>> flame out.
>>
>> -Dave
> That is covered extensively in the accident report. The pilots violated the Minimum Equipment List, making it an illegal flight. The incident would never have occurred if their fuel computer was working, or if they used the correct specific gravity for fuel (they used the value for lb/l instead of kg/l, resulting in the loading of less than half the fuel required).
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[kinsell]

Here's the Cliff Notes version of the report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEUQeaa1bhY

They could have had a working fuel gauge if a technician hadn't restored
a circuit breaker as part of a trouble-shooting exercise.

So yes it was not airworthy, but it wasn't as simple as the captain
saying "Screw the MEL, we're going anyway".



On 9/27/20 11:47 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Yes, now I recall having read that.
>
> On 9/27/2020 10:33 AM, 2G wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 8:28:45 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>> On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA
>>>> Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
>>>> Glider?
>>>>
>>>> The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
>>>> time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
>>>> apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?)
>>>> became a
>>>> CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli
>>>> and
>>>> Hudson incidents were glider pilots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
>>> airliners with no power and no loss of life.Â* But none of this is
>>> exactly breaking news.
>>>
>>> One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
>>> covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
>>> make the flight.Â* Not the primary cause of the accident, but would have
>>> provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an engine
>>> flame out.
>>>
>>> -Dave
>> That is covered extensively in the accident report. The pilots
>> violated the Minimum Equipment List, making it an illegal flight. The
>> incident would never have occurred if their fuel computer was working,
>> or if they used the correct specific gravity for fuel (they used the
>> value for lb/l instead of kg/l, resulting in the loading of less than
>> half the fuel required).
>>
>> Tom
>

[Michael Opitz]

At 16:32 27 September 2020, Dan Marotta wrote:
>The last Boeing I flew was the 727 and it had fuel gauges behind a
panel
>on the under side of the right wing.Â* There was also a calibrated drip
>stick.Â* I imagine the 767 has similar provisions and I also imagine that

>the aircraft's MEL does not include the fuel gauges in the cockpit.Â* But

>then I'm just imagining things...Â* In the first article I read about
>this incident, a long time ago, they mentioned the inoperative cockpit
>gauges and I think it mentioned that the flight was legal with no
>in-cockpit gauges.
>

>
Dan,

That was just it. The dripsticks do read in Pounds, and the crew
thought that because they were in Canada, the sticks would be
reading in Kilos. The crew assumed wrong by a factor of 2.2,
so they had less than half the fuel than they thought when they
had finished fueling. Lots of errors... Obviously no before fueling
dripstick readings, or paper calculations after getting the fuel offload
receipt from the fuel truck, etc....

RO

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks for the followup.

I guess it's all the fault of that stupid metric system! =-O Got my
asbestos undies on...

On 9/28/2020 9:34 AM, Michael Opitz wrote:
> At 16:32 27 September 2020, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> The last Boeing I flew was the 727 and it had fuel gauges behind a
> panel
>> on the under side of the right wing.ÂÂ* There was also a calibrated drip
>> stick.ÂÂ* I imagine the 767 has similar provisions and I also imagine that
>> the aircraft's MEL does not include the fuel gauges in the cockpit.ÂÂ* But
>> then I'm just imagining things...ÂÂ* In the first article I read about
>> this incident, a long time ago, they mentioned the inoperative cockpit
>> gauges and I think it mentioned that the flight was legal with no
>> in-cockpit gauges.
>>
> Dan,
>
> That was just it. The dripsticks do read in Pounds, and the crew
> thought that because they were in Canada, the sticks would be
> reading in Kilos. The crew assumed wrong by a factor of 2.2,
> so they had less than half the fuel than they thought when they
> had finished fueling. Lots of errors... Obviously no before fueling
> dripstick readings, or paper calculations after getting the fuel offload
> receipt from the fuel truck, etc....
>
> RO
>
>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[2G]

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 8:45:06 AM UTC-7, Michael Opitz wrote:
> At 16:32 27 September 2020, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >The last Boeing I flew was the 727 and it had fuel gauges behind a
> panel
> >on the under side of the right wing.Â* There was also a calibrated drip
> >stick.Â* I imagine the 767 has similar provisions and I also imagine that
>
> >the aircraft's MEL does not include the fuel gauges in the cockpit.Â* But
>
> >then I'm just imagining things...Â* In the first article I read about
> >this incident, a long time ago, they mentioned the inoperative cockpit
> >gauges and I think it mentioned that the flight was legal with no
> >in-cockpit gauges.
> >
>
> >
> Dan,
>
> That was just it. The dripsticks do read in Pounds, and the crew
> thought that because they were in Canada, the sticks would be
> reading in Kilos. The crew assumed wrong by a factor of 2.2,
> so they had less than half the fuel than they thought when they
> had finished fueling. Lots of errors... Obviously no before fueling
> dripstick readings, or paper calculations after getting the fuel offload
> receipt from the fuel truck, etc....
>
> RO

The dripsticks don't read in pounds (a unit of weight), they read in cm (a unit of distance). The dripstick reading was converted to liters (a unit of volume) using fuel tank tables for the 767. The pilots and the ground crew screwed up when converting the volume (liters) to mass (kg) by using the wrong conversion factor (specific gravity) as I mentioned earlier. They ended up with a figure in pounds when the assumed it was kg, off by a factor of 2.2. This is all covered in agonizing detail in the accident investigation report that I referenced earlier. Incredibly, none of the crew, either ground or air, received any training in making these calculations.

Tom

[Dan Marotta]

Well, Tom, now that you mention it, I never received training on use of
the drip stick beyond, "Pull it down until your feet get wet."
Fortunately, I never had to use it.

On 9/28/2020 8:27 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 8:45:06 AM UTC-7, Michael Opitz wrote:
>> At 16:32 27 September 2020, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> The last Boeing I flew was the 727 and it had fuel gauges behind a
>> panel
>>> on the under side of the right wing.Â* There was also a calibrated drip
>>> stick.Â* I imagine the 767 has similar provisions and I also imagine that
>>> the aircraft's MEL does not include the fuel gauges in the cockpit.Â* But
>>> then I'm just imagining things...Â* In the first article I read about
>>> this incident, a long time ago, they mentioned the inoperative cockpit
>>> gauges and I think it mentioned that the flight was legal with no
>>> in-cockpit gauges.
>>>
>> Dan,
>>
>> That was just it. The dripsticks do read in Pounds, and the crew
>> thought that because they were in Canada, the sticks would be
>> reading in Kilos. The crew assumed wrong by a factor of 2.2,
>> so they had less than half the fuel than they thought when they
>> had finished fueling. Lots of errors... Obviously no before fueling
>> dripstick readings, or paper calculations after getting the fuel offload
>> receipt from the fuel truck, etc....
>>
>> RO
> The dripsticks don't read in pounds (a unit of weight), they read in cm (a unit of distance). The dripstick reading was converted to liters (a unit of volume) using fuel tank tables for the 767. The pilots and the ground crew screwed up when converting the volume (liters) to mass (kg) by using the wrong conversion factor (specific gravity) as I mentioned earlier. They ended up with a figure in pounds when the assumed it was kg, off by a factor of 2.2. This is all covered in agonizing detail in the accident investigation report that I referenced earlier. Incredibly, none of the crew, either ground or air, received any training in making these calculations.
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[MarkFlys]

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 7:48:12 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Well, Tom, now that you mention it, I never received training on use of
> the drip stick beyond...

I was well trained... "Open the MEL to the page with the tables and watch the fueler pull the dripstick." I always stood far enough away (upwind) so I wouldn't smell like the fueler.
MD