Falklands trivia
Thread Starter
Falklands trivia
I imagine that most flights these days from the UK stop at Ascension both ways just curious if this flight has ever been operated non stop (without air refuelling)
At about 7000NM it should be possible.
At about 7000NM it should be possible.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
I would think the reason they do not do it is what do you do when you arrive and the place is closed due to bad weather, your diversion airfield is a bit of a distance away to say the least.
That said I do not know if they have ever tried it, but safety is always paramount.
That said I do not know if they have ever tried it, but safety is always paramount.
Last edited by NutLoose; 6th Oct 2014 at 15:40.
If you think about it, while it would be fairly easy for most modern, long-haul aircraft to operate as you describe; prudence dictates that you need to add a bit of fat in your planning.
As you get into the Southern Hemisphere, en route diversions become fewer especially when you start dealing with the diplomatic issues of the Falklands.
When you get to the islands themselves, which airfield do you nominate as your diversion in case of bad weather or if the runway is black?
Would you carry a lot of extra fuel and hold over the airfield, gambling on the weather improving?
If your diversion is on the South American mainland (assuming Argentina is out), then then you are going to need a fair chunk of extra fuel.
To answer your question, your 7000+ miles is now becoming 8000+ Miles when you consider a diversion. Whilst even that would be possible for some aircraft, you have to start questioning whether they could operate that far without a performance / useful load penalty.
Hope that helps.
As you get into the Southern Hemisphere, en route diversions become fewer especially when you start dealing with the diplomatic issues of the Falklands.
When you get to the islands themselves, which airfield do you nominate as your diversion in case of bad weather or if the runway is black?
Would you carry a lot of extra fuel and hold over the airfield, gambling on the weather improving?
If your diversion is on the South American mainland (assuming Argentina is out), then then you are going to need a fair chunk of extra fuel.
To answer your question, your 7000+ miles is now becoming 8000+ Miles when you consider a diversion. Whilst even that would be possible for some aircraft, you have to start questioning whether they could operate that far without a performance / useful load penalty.
Hope that helps.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am way out of the loop these days but could you do it legally given OK TAF with island holding reserves?
Just interested, however I have never felt comfortable with the concept.
Just interested, however I have never felt comfortable with the concept.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Basil and a C130 nearly had to do it at ASI once. I don't think the Shiny 10 would have fared awfully well 
Courtney Mil OK, thanks, I get the point. I never got down there. There wasn't a Peninsula Hotel down there for us
Courtney Mil OK, thanks, I get the point. I never got down there. There wasn't a Peninsula Hotel down there for us
Stilton,
I was once offered a non-stop seat on a 747SP that was ferrying oil workers. Direct MPA-Stanstead IIRC. Of course, if you are travelling northbound the number of Divs improve the closer to destination you get....
Turned it down as the windscreen had a crack which was, in effect, one flight only. Decided the risk of being somewhere in S America with a bag full of flying suits and having to pay the rest of the way home wasn't worth the risk!
I was once offered a non-stop seat on a 747SP that was ferrying oil workers. Direct MPA-Stanstead IIRC. Of course, if you are travelling northbound the number of Divs improve the closer to destination you get....
Turned it down as the windscreen had a crack which was, in effect, one flight only. Decided the risk of being somewhere in S America with a bag full of flying suits and having to pay the rest of the way home wasn't worth the risk!
As Evalu8er said, the oil charter did operate a 747SP for a while. It did do the Northbound sector direct Mt Pleasant-Stansted, (think it was about a 14 hour flight) but I seem to remember the southbound flight was via Recife, Brasil, due to the distance to alternates from the Falklands. The required payloads on the flight were quite light, as they were only taking 100 or fewer pax on each crew change flight.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the oil field trash had a rig down there the bi-weekly crew flight was Gatwick - Cape Verde - Mt Pleasant
Think they are starting up again in ?January? for a couple of years drilling
Think they are starting up again in ?January? for a couple of years drilling
Thread Starter
Thanks for the interesting replies, I thought that alternates would be a real problem, especially on the southbound leg.
That brings up another question, in the past where have aircraft diverted to that couldn't get into MPA ?
Do the Argentine's allow a diversion into their territory under any circumstances ?
I imagine that otherwise Chile would be the best option ?
Interesting that non stops to the UK have been made, it sounds like northbound exclusively. I can see how the 747SP would work well for that.
That brings up another question, in the past where have aircraft diverted to that couldn't get into MPA ?
Do the Argentine's allow a diversion into their territory under any circumstances ?
I imagine that otherwise Chile would be the best option ?
Interesting that non stops to the UK have been made, it sounds like northbound exclusively. I can see how the 747SP would work well for that.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 3* diverted into Monte' back in '97. It had the RIC onboard (sans officers, who had accompanied us Herc mates the previous week), who were put up in hotels. That went well...
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall pictures of a Vulcan parked in Brazil under a cloud of diplomatic embarrassment following an AAR snag during the conflict. It had not been able to jettison its missiles either.
The required payloads on the flight were quite light, as they were only taking 100 or fewer pax on each crew change flight
It only had 80 seats, all first class. The two closest useable alternates are Punte Arenas in Chile (about 1:50 flying time by big jet) and Montevideo (about 2:20).
Montevideo.....
One hears a little rumour that, as the Timmy Hangar at MPA is too small for the Voyager (as the RAF well knew back in 2002!), if there's a strong wind risk, then the Voyager has to be flown to wait it out at Montevideo....
Surely that cannot be true, can it?
If I recall correctly, it gets rather windy quite often down there......
One hears a little rumour that, as the Timmy Hangar at MPA is too small for the Voyager (as the RAF well knew back in 2002!), if there's a strong wind risk, then the Voyager has to be flown to wait it out at Montevideo....
Surely that cannot be true, can it?
If I recall correctly, it gets rather windy quite often down there......