Tabloid Passengers Terror!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair Passengers Terror!!
Yet more sensationalist reporting from the tabloids. Todays Mirror (Sep 30th) reports how passengers gripped their seats in panic when the captain told them they would be diverting to EGFF for fuel at 30,000ft! One quote in particular from a Mr Greenacre sums up the sheer terror that those poor passengers must have faced, 'People were gripping seats and holding hands. Everyone's worst nightmare is a mid-air conk-out .....' Must be a technical term!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Age: 47
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair said the captain always intended to stop for fuel. It explained: "Due to 120 knot headwinds and high payload on board, the captain decided to schedule a stop rather than leave bags behind."
As a wannabe, I've never heard of such a practice. Does this happen often? Seems a bit strange to me (miscalculation?) and I would have thought the pax would be briefed earlier in the flight. Or is this typical MO'L corner cutting?
As a wannabe, I've never heard of such a practice. Does this happen often? Seems a bit strange to me (miscalculation?) and I would have thought the pax would be briefed earlier in the flight. Or is this typical MO'L corner cutting?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 - 200 out of Funchal (short runway) for Manchester almost invariably stopped at the next island, Porto Santo (long runway), to top up. Exciting crossing at a few thousand feet normally. Mind you the crew did warn the passengers before take off.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We used to find that the 737-200's used to make a tech stop at Cardiff quite often an their way from Malaga to Dublin.
In the 1980s I flew (as a pax) several times from Bristol (BRS) to Tenerife South (TFS) on Britannia B 737-200s and we never had to take on fuel en route in either direction.
BRS-TFS is a far longer distance than AGP-DUB, isn't it? And we were leaving leaving BRS's short and high runway
This is a genuine question from a non-aviation person.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: CWL
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MV
You can lift significantly more weight out of TFS than AGP, due to length of runway, terrain etc.
Although TFS-BRS is a longer flight than AGP-DUB, it's the amount of fuel you can carry out of your departure airport that matters.
I've never flown a 200, but coming out of AGP to EMA in a 500 in the summer normally means packs off and improved climb performance figures.
Going the other way, sub tropical BRS is generally not as warm as AGP or TFS, BRS doesn't have any problems with terrain on the climb out, it isn't that high and it isn't that short a runway.
You can lift significantly more weight out of TFS than AGP, due to length of runway, terrain etc.
Although TFS-BRS is a longer flight than AGP-DUB, it's the amount of fuel you can carry out of your departure airport that matters.
I've never flown a 200, but coming out of AGP to EMA in a 500 in the summer normally means packs off and improved climb performance figures.
Going the other way, sub tropical BRS is generally not as warm as AGP or TFS, BRS doesn't have any problems with terrain on the climb out, it isn't that high and it isn't that short a runway.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tech stops on 737s used to be a very regular occurence when they were used on longer routes and not just on 200s. The 300 was quite limited on some sectors when I flew them. Cyprus to the UK was a regular for tech stopping.
M V
Its not just the lenght of the runway but also the surrounding terrain. On some runways takeoff in one direction can be much more limiting than in the other. Malaga is one of these. If the wind dictates taking of heading NorthWest then the hills get in the way, so weight is limited to improve the climb performance.
M V
Its not just the lenght of the runway but also the surrounding terrain. On some runways takeoff in one direction can be much more limiting than in the other. Malaga is one of these. If the wind dictates taking of heading NorthWest then the hills get in the way, so weight is limited to improve the climb performance.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also used to depend on the engine fit of the 200. If my memory serves me correctly, Britannia used to have at least two different engines on it's 737-200, the JT8D-15 and the JT8D-8. The former giving vastly superior performance.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merchant Venturer.
"...Bristol's short and high runway..."
C'mon now, it's hardly NBO or JNB is it!? I've got a 757 off that runway with a full pax load + 8 hour fuel load to Banjul,Gambia non-stop. Yes, I know the 75' is a beast as far as performance goes but Bristol's runway isn't that limiting due to it's 'Altitude'.
ChocksAwayUK.
As a 10 year old,many moons ago, and when 'The Bucket and Spade Brigade' were mere fledglings, I was a pax on a Dan Air BAC 1-11 and we had to 'Tech Stop' in Rimini on our way back from somewhere in the Med' purely and simply because the aircraft of the day could either carry all of the pax.+bags or all of the 'gas but not both,due primarily to either aircraft limitations or performance limitations 'imposed' by the airfield of departure. In our case it was an aircraft of limiting performance AND a very short runway AND very strong headwinds.
It is a perfectly normal, albeit, rare event these days as later generations of aircraft had more capacity to overcome these hurdles, however there could be any number of reasons why it has to be implemented. For example a major airline recently had a B777 flying from LHR to DXB that had to tech stop in FRA because he couldn't uplift any fuel in LHR due to a re-fuellers strike. It happens.
"...Bristol's short and high runway..."
C'mon now, it's hardly NBO or JNB is it!? I've got a 757 off that runway with a full pax load + 8 hour fuel load to Banjul,Gambia non-stop. Yes, I know the 75' is a beast as far as performance goes but Bristol's runway isn't that limiting due to it's 'Altitude'.
ChocksAwayUK.
As a 10 year old,many moons ago, and when 'The Bucket and Spade Brigade' were mere fledglings, I was a pax on a Dan Air BAC 1-11 and we had to 'Tech Stop' in Rimini on our way back from somewhere in the Med' purely and simply because the aircraft of the day could either carry all of the pax.+bags or all of the 'gas but not both,due primarily to either aircraft limitations or performance limitations 'imposed' by the airfield of departure. In our case it was an aircraft of limiting performance AND a very short runway AND very strong headwinds.
It is a perfectly normal, albeit, rare event these days as later generations of aircraft had more capacity to overcome these hurdles, however there could be any number of reasons why it has to be implemented. For example a major airline recently had a B777 flying from LHR to DXB that had to tech stop in FRA because he couldn't uplift any fuel in LHR due to a re-fuellers strike. It happens.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If tax is put on av fuel in the UK it will become the norm. We'll all be stopping in the nearest suitable tax free fuel station to fill up.
That will be good for the environment won't it!
That will be good for the environment won't it!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Limitations can also be imposed by the airline itself, the MTOW of the Ryanair -200s are reduced by 2 tons to save on airways charges, again another cost saving method. I wonder how much all these tech stops add up to???
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious
I did say I was a non aviation person and asked the question in the spirit of being educated.
I have been and am very grateful. You and others have pointed out that the 'altitude' is not a problem at BRS in these circumstances. I thought I had read or been told it was. Clearly I was mistaken but had I not mentioned it no-one would have corrected me and I would continue to be under a misapprehension.
Once again, thank you all for taking the trouble to explain.
I did say I was a non aviation person and asked the question in the spirit of being educated.
I have been and am very grateful. You and others have pointed out that the 'altitude' is not a problem at BRS in these circumstances. I thought I had read or been told it was. Clearly I was mistaken but had I not mentioned it no-one would have corrected me and I would continue to be under a misapprehension.
Once again, thank you all for taking the trouble to explain.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merchant Venturer
Please accept my apologies. I didn't mean my reply to seem severe. In answer to your query concerning 'Airfield Elevation vs. Aircraft Performance', it is generally when Airfield Elev. is in the 1000's of feet above mean sea level that Aircraft Performance starts to be seriously degraded(if I remember correctly Bristol is in the mid 100's). When it is coupled with high temperatures then it really starts to bite.
Hope this helps. Regards
Pontious.
Please accept my apologies. I didn't mean my reply to seem severe. In answer to your query concerning 'Airfield Elevation vs. Aircraft Performance', it is generally when Airfield Elev. is in the 1000's of feet above mean sea level that Aircraft Performance starts to be seriously degraded(if I remember correctly Bristol is in the mid 100's). When it is coupled with high temperatures then it really starts to bite.
Hope this helps. Regards
Pontious.