PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - BOAC B707 ops in the 1960s
View Single Post
Old 8th Jan 2015, 01:53
  #131 (permalink)  
ExSp33db1rd
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Smaller Antipode
Age: 89
Posts: 31
Received 22 Likes on 14 Posts
BEA Airtours 707's. My memory suggests that Airtours did their own thing, and had no reference to the BOAC operation, and I recall that there was an Airtours accident of some sort, and we in BOAC "tut-tutted" about how we'd taken good care of our 707's for so many years then given them to BEA, who promptly bent one ! Good old inter-company rivalry.

My log book shows that I flew a 707-436 trip London/New York/San Francisco/Honolulu/San Francisco/New York in September 1962 and in May 1963 flew a Montreal/Winnipeg/New York trip, which suggests that we handed over / took over at Winnipeg, but I don't know where the aircraft went / came from to transit WPG.

On Aug 10th 1961 I flew a London/Toronto/LosAngeles/London trip, and in the same era I also recorded 707-436 trips New York/Los Angeles/Detroit/London and London/Montreal/LosAngeles/London.

I was 'posted' to Honolulu in 1961 to fly 707-436 services on the SanFrancisco/Honolulu/Tokyo/Honolulu/SanFrancisco/ sectors.

I flew a Tokyo/Wake Island/Honolulu service on 4th September 1961.

We also used a "reflight planning in the air" gambit, to "stretch" the fuel.
Flight Plans required fuel for departure to destination, say London to New York, plus an alternate plus a "contingency" fuel, 10% comes to mind, but don't shoot me down, it is over 50 years ago now ! If that amount of fuel was unavailable then one could flight plan from -say- London to Gander, with Boston as the alternate plus a lower 10% value, then approaching Gander one could re-flight plan Gander-Boston with New York as alternate, and in this case the 10% overall "contingency" would be considerably less than the 10% contingency from London to New York required at the start, so you might well have that lower amount available at the time one did the "re-flight planning". If not, then one just landed at the nearest suitable airport as a tech. stop for more fuel.

A friend in a VC-10 flew past Boston and on to New York, where he was given a 45 min. hold, due traffic, not weather. Had he held for 45 minutes he would have used his contingency fuel and ended up with less than the minimum required on tanks on arrival at New York ( can't remember the requirment ) and could have been in the poo with New York ATC, so .... he flew back for 45 minutes to Boston, where the weather had deteriorated and was now below limits. Had he stayed over New York he could easily have landed, but risked being cited, instead he had nowhere to go, but had done everything "legally". ATC got him down on a USAF base somewhere.

Sometimes The Law Is An Ass.
ExSp33db1rd is offline