It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The plane is lighter if it has little to none exces fuel, therefore it will use up less fuel, and is cheaper in fuel cost.
Common sense please...
Anybody know does the 737 or all planes for that matter have an inerting system for the tanks Post TWA 800?
Or, all aircrafts can be taken over by automatic pilot from satellites – that is the other way.
Commercial aircraft could be made much safer if airlines and aircraft manufacturers' took public safety as serious as they should.
Even in the best of times aircraft maintance is below par, not to mention poor pilot training.
yes, the race for profit can be blamed. Sure, there are regulations on maintenance, however the companies tend to make sure they never do more than the minimum expected.
. This would increase the price for tickets, however it is worth paying 20 % more and being allive, right?
well, not in my country! we do the minimum required by the aviation standards . And not a penny more!
"INSUFFICIENT FUEL". If you don't know what that means, don't comment. Basic 737-800 knowledge PAHLEAASE!
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by apex
.....Aircraft are designed so that crashes are as survivable as possible, just the accidents recently have been of the more survivable types, namely not straight into terrain type accidents.
I respectfully disagree!
Commercial aircraft could be made much safer if airlines and aircraft manufacturers' took public safety as serious as they should.
Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by C0bzz
"INSUFFICIENT FUEL". If you don't know what that means, don't comment. Basic 737-800 knowledge PAHLEAASE!
I don't know what your problem is, but I was just trying to explain why it would be cheaper for airliners to fly with just enough fuel for the trip, instead of taking in tons of extra fuel.
So jeah, PAHLEAASE right back at ya.
Wondering what happened to the pilots that were killed? the area of the cockpit that they were sat in looked fairly intact and yet they were killed
When we did our ditching training in the SVC10, we were afterwards shown a film of a 10 foot SVC10 model, specially built to simulate a ditching. Every time it was catapulted into the tank, the model`s nose area underwent violent pitching. The boffins calculated that those G forces would have killed the cockpit crew in the event of a real ditching. The injury would have been the tearing of the arteries from the heart. So Turkish hitting tail first, then violently pitching down, then the sudden stop, may well have done just that.
www.pprune.org...
Originally posted by C0bzz
Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel. Unless that has something to do with the training regime, it has nothing to do with the Airline, and nothing to do with cutting corners.
How would not putting enough fuel in save them money? If they over fill the fuel tanks that just means they will need to put less in for the next trip. The excess doesn't get drained out at the end of each flight and chucked down a drain.
Originally posted by solidshot
Originally posted by C0bzz
Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel. Unless that has something to do with the training regime, it has nothing to do with the Airline, and nothing to do with cutting corners.
There was a news report on the local news in the London area (probably over a year ago now?) stating that the number of aircraft having to declare an emergency and ask for immediate landing due to low fuel had risen markedly, and although the reporter couldn't prove it there was a lot of speculation at that time this was due to airlines cutting the amount of fuel on their aircraft
So, there was really no need to for you to be so patronizing.
THERE has been a sharp increase in planes, particularly from Continental Airlines, flying into New York with so little fuel that they demand an emergency landing, according to US authorities. In a report on minimum and emergency fuel declarations into Newark airport last year, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) expressed concern that some of the incidents may be prompted by fuel-saving measures.
Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel.
Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by C0bzz
Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel.
thats bollocks - Jet 2 flight (amsetrdamn >leeds 15/10/2007) landed at newcastle with bingo fuel after declaring a fuel emergency , after being diverted from Leeds to Teeside (after a 30 min hold at leeds) , missed landing at teeside then another divert to newcastle - delacred emergency on way to newcastle and landed with less than 100 lbs fuel (which is nothing) and a cockpit lit up like a fire works display.
apparantly the crew of that Jet 2 flight had allrady started the unpowered decent checklist and had advised newcastle approach of there status.
so NO its not PILOT ERROR.
Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel.