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.

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.

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.

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.

Nut - to be fair, he's not asking whether it's a good idea, just whether it has been done. And you do have a few more divs on the northbound leg.

Used to operate to Gan with island holding.
That was in a substantial 4 turboprop which had already demonstrated successful, and re-useable, ditching capability :}

Exascot, a TAF for MPA is only meaningful until the season changes. Probably later the same morning.

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 :eek:

Courtney Mil OK, thanks, I get the point. I never got down there. There wasn't a Peninsula Hotel down there for us :E

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!

The Voyager should be able to do it quite comfortably intheory, Stilton. But I understand it doesn't for aforementioned reasons and also to maximise payload.

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.

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

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.

Going back quite a few years (late 80s) I was in a C130 that diverted to Montivideo. We were about 100nm from MPA when the decision was made.

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...

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.

What do they have at MPA? CAT I ILS, or is it PARs or such like? I imagine CAT III isn't worth it.

I am sure a 747 did it non-stop on a non pax flight a couple of times bringing in supplies in bulk after a few delays of the timmy.

.

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......:uhoh: