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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sulleburger (USA Flt 1529) landing in the Hudson Animation | J3mia03 | Aviation Photos | 0 | February 17th 10 12:57 AM |
Sulleburger's (USA Flt 1529) landing in the Hudson Animation | J3mia03 | Aviation Photos | 1 | February 16th 10 12:28 PM |
Hudson landing animation | John Cochrane | Soaring | 4 | November 13th 09 10:44 PM |
Check this Approach & Landing out! | nmg175 | Naval Aviation | 5 | September 27th 06 02:07 AM |
Landing Check Lists | Nyal Williams | Soaring | 24 | December 31st 05 01:49 AM |