Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Plane ‘carrying football team from Brazil’ crashes in Colombia.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Sometimes pilots carry even MORE fuel that is required...I guess they are crazy since that does not align with the legally-required extra fuel...

    ...and I think Elaw may be saying that there's even been cases of planes that took off with legal fuel loads that ran out of fuel...

    And then, I guess there's no examples of cheating by 5 or 10 min and successfully completing lots and lots of flights.

    But hey, no gray area here.
    Oh, man. I'm still convinced that with the three of us, there is something like an aviation triumvirate, which should not be dissolved.

    Fatal Aviation accidents anno 2016? - In my eyes this one sticks out. I mean, 3WE, you wrote entry #135 here in this topic, but I know that this wasn't your first one

    concerning 'LaMia Flight 2933', as the English wikipedia calls it.

    Sometimes pilots carry even MORE fuel that is required
    Yes. Better than nada. Imho that are the first things which a jet pilot must learn: the maximum range of his jet, and, even more important,

    Do I sit in a cockpit which is able to bring my passengers and me nonstop from my departure to the final arrival?! - If I remember the things correctly, the unexperienced airline

    - founded 2015, for a flight in 2016... ! -

    tried to use an Avro RJ85, for a route which never on this planet is short enough for a RJ85, if you do not perform at least 1 fuel stop!

    The route? - You can correct me, but wasn't it
    almost a 3,000 nautical miles route,
    and they tried to fly it nonstop in a RJ85,
    which you definitely MUST land after not more than 1,900 nautical miles, for a fuel stop?!

    I don't know much about RJ85s. But I know one or two things about cars. You can't go from Lohausen to Fontanarossa nonstop in a 1978 Volkswagen Beetle with 34 hp. There inbetween is
    at least
    1 fuel stop.

    Sad story, the Chapecoense story. And so very senseless, because very very very avoidable!

    PS: I never had to observe the fuel in a 1978 Beetle, that was the task for my father, but now I have the facts. It needs 9.7l for 100 km, and on board is a cute little fuel tank: 40 liters.
    Thus we have the max nonstop range for a 1978 Volkswagen Beetle, with indeed not more than 34 hp (!): 412 kilometers, if you are a driver who likes to search the next gas station with the last drop...
    Last edited by LH-B744; 2018-09-09, 07:01. Reason: Maximum nonstop range
    That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
    The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
    And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
    Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
      PS: I never had to observe the fuel in a 1978 Beetle, that was the task for my father, but now I have the facts. It needs 9.7l for 100 km, and on board is a cute little fuel tank: 40 liters.
      Thus we have the max nonstop range for a 1978 Volkswagen Beetle, with indeed not more than 34 hp (!): 412 kilometers, if you are a driver who likes to search the next gas station with the last drop...
      9.7l/100km is the AVERAGE fuel burn. If you HAD to make the trip (or die) you would have to also consider the route and the terrain, and then guess the winds, the amount of speed variation, the condition of the engine, the condition of the tires, the road surfaces and even how many bugs you might mash on the windshield. That is called 'contigency fuel'. Then you need to consider how long it might take you to find a parking place once you get there. That is called 'reserves'. Then you need to consider that you might not be able to park at your intended destination and have to drive to a nearby town to park. That is called 'diversion fuel'. Now your analogy is more legitimate.

      You can't say, "Oh, I've driven from Lohausen to Fontanarossa before in a 1978 Volkswagen Beetle so therefore it will always make it there." But it seems that is what these pilots were thinking.

      Comment


      • the pilots accepted the atc's advice to a holding pattern during the final approach even they were well aware of the fuel shortage problem.
        what's on their mind? rather going down than to declare fuel emergency and request to land immediately?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by thor View Post
          ***what's on their mind?****
          Can we get away with this and not get in really big trouble?

          Not the most pure thought and seemingly illogical, but...
          Les rčgles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Can we get away with this and not get in really big trouble?
            Not such an uncommon mentality among airmen outside of the safety culture...

            How it overrides the survival instinct I'll just never understand.

            I think it's called... stupidity?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Not such an uncommon mentality among airmen outside of the safety culture...

              How it overrides the survival instinct I'll just never understand.

              I think it's called... stupidity?
              No, it is called sense of superiority and wishful thinking: "It won't happen to me, I have done this before, I am a damn good pilot and I can manage it".

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment

              Working...
              X