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
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:08:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in et:: But he landed only 167 miles short of his destination and presumably had the required reserves at that time. Presumably. A great circle route between LA and London crosses Greenland, passes near Iceland and then overflies Scottland and the UK. I don't think that you can make the case that there was a big risk of running out of fuel far from an airport. In fact, he could have landed in Scottland with about 40 minutes more fuel than he landed with. Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in Scotland and all those intermediate airports. It will be interesting to see what the whole story is. I doubt the "whole story" will ever be completely revealed. It probably comes down to deciding to continue after passing each suitable airport with plenty of fuel to reach the next suitable airport. The airports are only 500-700nm apart so he was always less than an hour from a suitable airport. Thanks for that information. I would also doubt that he made this decision without consulting his company dispatch. Right. But given the BA policy, I'm not sure their input was safety oriented. I guess that I might feel differently if the flight was going from LAX to Sidney and decided not to return or to land at Hawaii. Definitely. It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will weigh in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and this guy had three jet engines!!! That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a forced descent. And another issue is, if the engine failure had been a result of fuel contamination, how did the PIC determine that the remaining fuel was safe for continued transcontinental flight? Additionally, when the engine failed, ATC mentioned sparks being seen. How did the PIC determine there was no structural damage to the airframe as a result of the engine failure? I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine airplane? I don't have the requisite experience in airliner operation to begin to answer that question. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in Scotland and all those intermediate airports. Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Sondre Stromfjord in Greenland is long enough (I've seen 747s there) and so is Keflavik in Iceland (I've seen 747s there too). I doubt the "whole story" will ever be completely revealed. I would suspect that the press will drum up enough concern that there will be an investigation and the story will come out. Right. But given the BA policy, I'm not sure their input was safety oriented. I was not aware that BA had a bad safety record or that the passengers were exposed to much risk. That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a forced descent. I think that four engine airliners have to be able to fly with two engines inoperative on one side but I am not certain. They can probably fly on one outboard engine at certain weights. And another issue is, if the engine failure had been a result of fuel contamination, how did the PIC determine that the remaining fuel was safe for continued transcontinental flight? That seems remote. Has it ever happened? Could it even happen? Jet engines can burn almost anything that is flamable. Seems unlikely that you could even find enough of anything, except Jet fuel, at LAX to fill a 747! Maybe they know why the engine failed. Additionally, when the engine failed, ATC mentioned sparks being seen. How did the PIC determine there was no structural damage to the airframe as a result of the engine failure? I think airliners are required to have burst protection built into the nacelles to contain failed engine debris. I know that the 777 has this (saw it on TV!) I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine airplane? I don't have the requisite experience in airliner operation to begin to answer that question. I don't either, I just think cheaper is better. I have found over the years that when a group of smart people come to a decision that seems crazy to me, it only seems crazy because I didn't have all the facts that they had. Based on this, I give people the benefit of the doubt. Mike MU-2 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net... It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will weigh in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and this guy had three jet engines!!! I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine airplane? The reason I fly on four engined planes is that they don't do any with five engines |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote
That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a forced descent. Nope! It has a two-engine VMC around 230 KTS. Its two-engine service ceiling would probably be less than 20,000' depending upon weight. Bob Moore |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In a previous article, "Mike Rapoport" said:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in Scotland and all those intermediate airports. Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Sondre Are you thinking of Tenerife? That's in the Canary Islands, not Scotland. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ "It must be in the basement; I'll go upstairs and get it." - M.C.Escher |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net... Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in Scotland and all those intermediate airports. Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Er, when? (But you're certainly correct in that Edinburgh, Glasgow and Prestwick are probably all suitable for landing a B747.) Julian |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in Scotland and all those intermediate airports. Glasgow (2700m) and Prestwick near Glasgow(3000m) can take a 747, Edinburgh at 2600m might also. There are two RAF bases which could also take anything big as they are emergency diversion fields. Long before there is Reyjavik in Iceland So when did two 747s collide in Scotland? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I was, my error. The runways at Glasgow and Edinburgh are long enough and
I'm certain that they are in Scottland. Mike MU-2 "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... In a previous article, "Mike Rapoport" said: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message . .. Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in Scotland and all those intermediate airports. Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Sondre Are you thinking of Tenerife? That's in the Canary Islands, not Scotland. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ "It must be in the basement; I'll go upstairs and get it." - M.C.Escher |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Montblack" wrote in message ... ("Montblack" wrote) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story Iceland, post-Iceland, pre-Ireland, Ireland, Manchester, London, Go no-go decision points. I guess "pre-Ireland" means ...hope we make Ireland. Probably should have eliminated this one and just gone with Ireland, since once you're out of that big circle around Iceland the next go no-go decision point is the Irish coast. Not too many places to land pre-Ireland g. You need to check up on your North Atlantic geography. Once you are out of that big circle around Iceland, the next point of decision is the Scottish Coast. Ireland is only an issue if you are doing the none Greenland route and then the first airport is Shannon but to allow the Russians to fly to Cuba. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Are you thinking of Tenerife? That's in the Canary Islands, not
Scotland. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message k.net... I was, my error. It's unfortunately too easy to mix in the memory the pictures of a devastated Pan Am B747 lying around after the Tenerife accident and pictures of a devastated Pan Am B747 lying around after the Lockerbie bombing, which was definitely in Scotland. Julian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mooney Engine Problems in Flight | Paul Smedshammer | Piloting | 45 | December 18th 04 09:40 AM |
Autorotation ? R22 for the Experts | Eric D | Rotorcraft | 22 | March 5th 04 06:11 AM |
What if the germans... | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 119 | January 26th 04 11:20 PM |
Motorgliders and gliders in US contests | Brian Case | Soaring | 22 | September 24th 03 12:42 AM |
Corky's engine choice | Corky Scott | Home Built | 39 | August 8th 03 04:29 AM |