|
Regarding Fuel, Concorde and Brian Walpole I realise that my remix of the famous PPrune Concorde thread omitted Brian Walpole due to a typo. I have fixed that and there is a small page about him accessible from the index page here: https://paulross.github.io/pprune-co...ocs/index.html
Interestingly in the original PPrune thread there is an account of F-BTSD in February 2003 that made an emergency landing at Halifax with just taxy fuel: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/42398...ml#post6025418 |
Originally Posted by mustafagander
(Post 10585511)
Scud wasn't the only one either. Years ago we had a line Cpt known as vapors.
Tootle pip!! |
Originally Posted by N1EPR
(Post 10590570)
Sometime in the mid 1970s a PanAM 747 spent way too much time holding to get into JFK. He then diverted to EWR. Due to the complex traffic system in the New York area this 15 nm distance was extended to over 100 miles. Approaching EWR from the SW to land to the SW an engine flamed out. When the second engine flamed out they decided to land downwind to the NE and were cleared to do so. On approach the third engine flamed out. The fourth engine continued to run until he cleared the runway at the end, then flamed out.
When I taxied out shortly afterwards the plane still had not been towed in and it was truly an overwhelming sight. This and a number of essentially similar incidents over a relatively short time span resulted in Boeing publishing "Minimum fuel for approach" numbers for every type and variant. It also resulted in ICAO introducing "fixed final reserve" into SARPs -- the minimum fuel in tanks on landing, enough to ensure all engines were still running ---- and a concept too many AU pilots dispute to this day. Tootle pip!! |
It strikes me that pilots are being placed into an increasingly difficult situation - land with excess and get a warning from management (esp. Ryanair) or land with less than mins and you get hit with a safety violation. Doesn’t seem to leave much wriggle room for holds/delays/weather diverts etc. I would prefer that these management practices are not revealed in memos after a crash caused by fuel starvation.... |
Annoys me intensely that the same executives who demand minimum fuel - “to save money” - still pay themselves eye-watering, and frankly obscene amounts.
How come there is apparently enough money to pay executive salaries but not to put a sensible amount of fuel in their aircraft? |
Brian walpole OBE...over bovingdon empty, chalked up in the bogs the next morning at glasgow |
Originally Posted by DCP123
(Post 10586546)
Congratulations. You're doing it right. Sadly, not everybody does. I've seen the consequences.
I do hope you and your mate CW247 are only flying MS Flight Sim. "Not use the gauges" ---- really, truely? Please give me a hint, so I can avoid ever having to travel pax on your outfit. A little more knowledge on how aircraft flowmeters and contents gauges have been certified in the last 40 or so years might also help. To borrow from a military maxim: "The plan of battle rarely survives the first encounter with the enemy". Funnily enough, flight plans are quite widely used, not just by airlines. Tootle pip!! |
Originally Posted by Fonsini
(Post 10593387)
It strikes me that pilots are being placed into an increasingly difficult situation - land with excess and get a warning from management (esp. Ryanair) or land with less than mins and you get hit with a safety violation. Doesn’t seem to leave much wriggle room for holds/delays/weather diverts etc. I would prefer that these management practices are not revealed in memos after a crash caused by fuel starvation.... The pilot in command carries strict liability. Practically this means there is only one person responsible. Company manuals, Company made plots of fuel carried versus peer pilots and the like seek to push an agenda. Heck, an Australian carrier "encourages" all pilots to review on the company "app" fuel ordering. The First Officer up for a promotion can be "managed" that way too. At the end of the day, Pilot in Command means just that. Statute empowers the PIC to do the right thing, not the commercially expedient. |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10594361)
There always is wiggle room.
The pilot in command carries strict liability. Practically this means there is only one person responsible. Company manuals, Company made plots of fuel carried versus peer pilots and the like seek to push an agenda. Heck, an Australian carrier "encourages" all pilots to review on the company "app" fuel ordering. The First Officer up for a promotion can be "managed" that way too. At the end of the day, Pilot in Command means just that. Statute empowers the PIC to do the right thing, not the commercially expedient. That's it, in a nutshell!! Tootle pip!! |
Mate of mine kept doing "the right thing" but was placed under immense pressure for not towing the company line which was, for example, to fly the N Atlantic in a big twin with 5% of the last hour's fuel burn for contingency (honestly, because it was an ERA operation and the rules permitted it (!) ). In some cowboy outfits, keep doing the "right thing" as a professional Commander and you could be walking the streets. As a true pro, he walked, joined a proper outfit & never looked back.
|
Funny how minimum fuel types end up drinking by themselves on overnights and never join the dots.
|
Originally Posted by UAV689
(Post 10586409)
(...) Ryr still publishes statistics for the skippers fuel burn, and has just recently started to write letters to captains asking them to explain their “over burn” on selected routes with an invitation to Dublin...how does the IAA still sit by and do nothing.....
|
Funnily enough, I was watching Ice Pilots NWT a few weeks ago, and they were delivering water bombers to South Korea. When it came to refuelling the aircraft in Korea, Justin Simle asked the Koreans why they’d only brought 10 drums of gas, and the response was ‘the journey only needs 10 drums’ he was livid! OMAA |
Brian Walpole fuel incident
Curious SLF here, how come Walpole ended up with insufficient fuel? Was it always a relatively close run thing with Concorde?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:37. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.