The great circle route from LA to London passes pretty close to Toronto.
Posted on 03/07/2005 4:56:18 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
The NY Times bought out the WP share of the IHT last year.
So what's the difference between buring more fuel due to an IFSD and burning more fuel due to excessive headwind? Planes divert to their alternate due to bad weather at their primary every day. It's not a big deal.
Interesting news report with video of the "Gimli Glider" here. Apparently the pilot converted kg's to lb's, and had half as much fuel as he thought he did. D'oh.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-69-240-1155-20/that_was_then/life_society/gimli_glider
The great circle route from LA to London passes pretty close to Toronto.
I thought it was the Chicago Tribune that was bought out, hence the name.
Damn, where did that happen? Sounds like Japanese commentary in the background.
how about the Air Transat flight that was forced to glide into the Azores in 2001... that was an Airbus A330
Just because Airbus is not an American made plane does not make it a fine aircraft.
Sounds like a bunch of kids arguing - my team is better than your team with absolutely no interest in the facts.
it is not true
Two-engine aircraft are designed to deal with the loss of any engine without danger. My question is whether a four-engine aircraft that is missing one will still have the safety margin of being able to withstand the loss of any other engine without danger. And asymmetrical thrust is my concern; on a 777, the engines are all located near the central axis, so the moment generated by assemmetrical thrust would be somewhat limitted. I would expect that on four-engine aircraft, the moment generated by using two same-side engines would be greater. Cutting back power on the outside engine could reduce this moment, but I don't know how much spare thrust is available. To be sure, I wouldn't expect the plane to fall out of the sky with two engines (since maintaining flight should require a lot less thrust than taking off) but I would think controllability would suffer greatly.
Nope. It was the NYT.
http://www.nytco.com/company-timeline-iht.html
"Remember, these things are controlled by French computers running French code. Sure, it probably passed the FAA certification tests, but do *you* want to trust a Frog computer to not suddenly decide that you're in-flight instead of taking off and cut power? I don't."
Good point - but I certainly don't care to fly on anything that uses a Windows operating system. The major point with the Airbus system is the no over-ride concept.
"The AirBus is just another dirty Fokker."
Hmmm, be careful how you pronounce that in company...:)
From what I read, it was the ground crew that screwed up and loaded the wrong amount in, and since the "fuel gauge" computer wasn't working, the pilot didn't know.
All in all, he managed to get safely get a 767 down with no thrust and only the ram air turbine generator providing power. From what I've read about the incident, he should not have been able to get the big airliner to glide nearly as far as he did. He obviously departed the recognized "recommended flight envelope" in order to do this. An Airbus product would have (assuming the control system was still getting power, ha ha) followed the max glide slope programmed into it and crashed since there is no override.
I think this plane should have dumped fuel in the Atlantic and landed somewhere on the east coast for repairs. Considering that they didn't know for sure that the problem was isolated in one engine, it was reckless to continue on to Great Britain.
That's my biggest problem with the Airbus concept as well - no override and no manual backup. The Boeing approach is much better (IMHO), and it shows the Boeing heritage of building tough airplanes that can take major damage and keep flying (along with everything that implies).
And four-engine aircraft are designed to deal with the loss of any engine without any danger.
Two-engine aircraft are designed to deal with the loss of any engine without danger. My question is whether a four-engine aircraft that is missing one will still have the safety margin of being able to withstand the loss of any other engine without danger.
Listen to yourself! Are you not equally concerned with a two-engine aircraft losing another after losing one? Why not? Why do you consider it perfectly safe for a two-engine plane to lose one engine but not for a four-engine plane to lose one engine? You say "but what if it lost another"? Well, what if the two-engine plane lost another? That would concern me a heck of a lot more. But you simply dismiss it with "Two-engine aircraft are designed to deal with the loss of any engine without danger." But so are four-engine aircraft. You seem totally irrational.
To sum up your argument: it's a disaster for a four-engine plane to lose an engine becasue it might lose another and then it would only have two engines left even though it can still fly with two -- but that's a disaster. But for a two-engine plane to lose an engine, that's hunky-dory because they are "designed that way" and if they lose one they could never lose another even though that would leave them with NONE -- and that's perfectly safe.
This was shortly after the Canadians "went Metric." Who ever did the calculations was probably on the old system yet.
Click on the link in my post #53. It shows the GC route from LAX to LHR. At no point in the entire route are they more than 60 minutes away from an airfield capable of handling a 747.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.