If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Jet fuel A-1 specific gravity
Tim Epstein wrote:
You might want to add in units after the percentages. Don't forgot about what happened with the Gimli Glider... I didn't know there was a unit for Specific Gravity. And what's with the Gimli Glider? Haven't heard of it. Ramapriya |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Jet fuel A-1 specific gravity
Tim Epstein wrote:
You might want to add in units after the percentages. Don't forgot about what happened with the Gimli Glider... wrote: I didn't know there was a unit for Specific Gravity. There isn't. It's a unitless ratio of the density of something divided by the density of water. And what's with the Gimli Glider? Haven't heard of it. Google for "gimli glider" and I'm sure you'll find it. In a nutshell, an airline flight crew got confused between metric and english units when ordering fuel, took on less than they expected, and ran out of gas in flight, and dead-sticked it to an abandoned military airfield in Gimli, Manitoba. Opinion varies on whether the flight crew were total idiots for committing the unpardonable sin of running out of gas, or heros for managing to get the plane on the ground with no injuries and only minor damage to the aircraft. Personally, I fall into the first camp. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Jet fuel A-1 specific gravity
Roy Smith wrote:
And what's with the Gimli Glider? Haven't heard of it. Google for "gimli glider" and I'm sure you'll find it. In a nutshell, an airline flight crew got confused between metric and english units when ordering fuel, took on less than they expected, and ran out of gas in flight, and dead-sticked it to an abandoned military airfield in Gimli, Manitoba. Reminds me of a goof-up on one of our contracting jobs where the Lead Estimator procured his rates per square foot and inserted the same numerics per square meter. Our company got massively shafted on that job :\ Can't believe the Gimli incident escaped first the Flight Dispatcher and then two pilots. Yikes! Ramapriya |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jet fuel A-1 specific gravity
Roy Smith wrote:
Google for "gimli glider" and I'm sure you'll find it. In a nutshell, an airline flight crew got confused between metric and english units when ordering fuel, took on less than they expected, and ran out of gas in flight, and dead-sticked it to an abandoned military airfield in Gimli, Manitoba. Opinion varies on whether the flight crew were total idiots for committing the unpardonable sin of running out of gas, or heros for managing to get the plane on the ground with no injuries and only minor damage to the aircraft. Personally, I fall into the first camp. Of course the story was much more involved than that. It included a series of mistakes or omissions on the part of a number of people. If any one of the mistakes had not taken place, the incident would not have happened. When you look at the whole story, the captain was only one player in the drama, but was expected by many to figuratively go down with his ship. Let's see if I can remember the essence: - The airline purchased the 767 with the fuel gauges calibrated in metric units. It was their first aircraft model with non-English units. - The dual channel fuel gauges started to give trouble about 3 weeks before the incident, but failed at Edmonton, prior to a scheduled trip to Montreal. Both circuit breakers would pop if the power was turned off and on, and while the tech did not have replacement modules, he found that he could set up one channel, leaving the breaker for the other channel off, and the breaker for the working channel would hold. It was because of a poor solder joint and a design problem with the fallback arrangment of the system. - The airline's MEL would allow the aircraft to proceed with the one channel operative, supported by a drip test of the tanks to confirm the fuel quantity. (Some reports I read said that the MEL even allowed the aircraft to proceed with only the drip test, and no operative gauges.) - On arrival in Montreal, a well-meaning, but unauthorized tech tried to run the self-test of the fuel management system, with the result that the circuit breakers on both channels popped, disabling the system completely. That fact was not reported to the maintenance supervisor. - The supervisor, thinking that the aircraft was in the same condition as when it arrived, approved the aircraft departure with the drip test, not realizing that neither fuel gauge was working. - The captain did not have a current MEL, as the aircraft were so new and so many changes had been made to the MEL (55 in three months) that the airline had not issued them to the crews. The maintenance supervisor was the only one with the current MEL. The captain confirmed that he could depart, not mentioning the non-working gauges, and was told it was OK with the drip test. - The flight crew calculated the weight of fuel needed for the flight, and the fueler converted that to liters (the fuel truck meters were in liters) using the wrong fuel density (lb. per liter, instead of kg per liter.) He dripped the tanks, calculated how many liters needed to be added, rechecked the drip after adding what he thought was the required fuel, and reported everything on a fuel slip provided to the flight crew. - The captain felt there was something wrong, and questioned the density number used and noted on the fuel slip. The first officer confirmed that the number was what he remembered. As I recall, there was an off-duty company pilot that also confirmed the number. The captain had the refueler recheck the whole test twice, and was given the same results each time. In short, he had less than 1/2 the fuel he needed for the flight. (The ratio of pounds to kilograms) - The fueler didn't know the flight's final destination, so didn't question the quantities. He only knew the aircraft was making a short 100 mile hop to the first stop at Ottawa, where the flight normally topped up, and for which there was certainly adequate fuel. The captain had instead decided to take on fuel for the whole trip to Edmonton, to try to catch up on the schedule after a late start, and avoid the top-up in Ottawa. - On takeoff, the captain felt that the aircraft felt light for the expected fuel load, and decided to have the tanks tested again at the first stop in Ottawa. The refueller did the same drip tests, used the same incorrect fuel density for the calculation, and presented the crew with a slip with yet another incorrect fuel reading. So how much was the captain really to blame for the problems? Under the airline's rules, with no flight engineer, the maintenance forces were responsible for proper fueling. The flight crew only provided the required weight, and confirmed it with the fuel gauges. With no fuel gauges, they hadn't been trained in how to confirm the drip tests, and had never been provided with the proper fuel density for metric measurement. The captain had the tests repeatedly made at two different airports, and was presented with consistent, but also incorrect, information. The official report placed primary blame on the lack of training provided the refuelers, maintainers and flight crews on the new aircraft. There was also criticism of procedures, the control and distribution of manuals and documents, and so on. The airline suspended the captain for a time, but public pressure forced them to reinstate him. He did not attract primary blame in the accident report, and continued to fly for the airline until normal retirement. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Running dry? | Greg Copeland | Piloting | 257 | August 26th 05 03:47 PM |
Towing | Roger Fowler | Soaring | 6 | August 11th 05 04:25 AM |
"Tanks on both" checklist item | Koopas Ly | Piloting | 46 | December 12th 03 03:42 PM |
Real stats on engine failures? | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 127 | December 8th 03 04:09 PM |
Hot Starting Fuel Injected Engines | Peter Duniho | Piloting | 23 | October 18th 03 02:50 AM |