 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mick.B
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RT
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
 |
|
"Mick.B" <masn (AT) iprimus (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:1178609861.672467.296380 (AT) u30g2000hsc (DOT) googlegroups.com...
Sure does. That's one of the most information-free reports I've ever read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coop
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:34:11 +1000, "RT" <notr.thomas (AT) nowhere (DOT) com.au>
wrote:
the recovered bits that fell off to determine mode of failure, etc.
145kg is almost 25% overweight for aerobatics...
Coop |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt weber
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
The reality is the weight is rarely known to better than about 1%. I
certainly don't recommend operating overweight, but I was on a early
QF 744 flight from LAX that probably departed LAX about 30,000 pounds
over weight. We were overweight on the stand and had to burn fuel to
get down to taxi weight, and then burn more at the end of the runway
to get down to what was though to be MGTOW.
Never heard how it had happened. The only reason the crew became aware
of the weight problem was in the first 8 hours they went through about
an extra 1000 pounds of fuel per hour. When you work the numbers,
1000 pounds per hour is about 30,000 pounds, or about 3.5% of MGTOW.
The Captain planned to have the baggage and cargo weighed as it came
off the aircraft.
The entire margins for the trip were consumed long before we got to
Australia, and ended up being forced to land at BNE for Fuel.
In an case, being 20kg overweight on an aircraft that weighs 5000kg is
within the error of measurement. The TOW weight is in fact based upon
a series of estimates and measurements that were no better than 1%
error to begin with. 20kg on a 5000kg aircraft is .4%. Consider this
for a minute: A 1% difference in fuel density is several thousand
pounds with full tanks on 747. Just heat or cool the fuel a degree or
two....
Not recommended, but it is unlikely to have a measurable effect on
anything. On the other hand 20kg on a 100kg ultralight is a big deal.
Obviously 20kg on a 390,000kg aircraft is meaningless.
On Wed, 9 May 2007 09:31:29 +0200 (CEST), nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) fake (Marty)
wrote:
| Quote: | Coop wrote:
145kg is almost 25% overweight for aerobatics...
I think it's appalling. I was reading a report only a few days ago where a
pilot was scrutinised because of a takeoff weight 'only' 20kg in excess of
it's MTOW. If you read the report, there were other violations which
contributed towards the prang but the same kind of stupidity was evident.
ATSB Report VH-TUF - http://tinyurl.com/357oh4 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SR20GOER
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:41 am Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
"matt weber" <mattheww (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:s5h44352lpicij8varris5brctvm1juo3s (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
| Quote: | The reality is the weight is rarely known to better than about 1%. I
certainly don't recommend operating overweight, but I was on a early
QF 744 flight from LAX that probably departed LAX about 30,000 pounds
over weight. We were overweight on the stand and had to burn fuel to
get down to taxi weight, and then burn more at the end of the runway
to get down to what was though to be MGTOW.
Never heard how it had happened. The only reason the crew became aware
of the weight problem was in the first 8 hours they went through about
an extra 1000 pounds of fuel per hour. When you work the numbers,
1000 pounds per hour is about 30,000 pounds, or about 3.5% of MGTOW.
The Captain planned to have the baggage and cargo weighed as it came
off the aircraft.
The entire margins for the trip were consumed long before we got to
Australia, and ended up being forced to land at BNE for Fuel.
In an case, being 20kg overweight on an aircraft that weighs 5000kg is
within the error of measurement. The TOW weight is in fact based upon
a series of estimates and measurements that were no better than 1%
error to begin with. 20kg on a 5000kg aircraft is .4%. Consider this
for a minute: A 1% difference in fuel density is several thousand
pounds with full tanks on 747. Just heat or cool the fuel a degree or
two....
Not recommended, but it is unlikely to have a measurable effect on
anything. On the other hand 20kg on a 100kg ultralight is a big deal.
Obviously 20kg on a 390,000kg aircraft is meaningless.
On Wed, 9 May 2007 09:31:29 +0200 (CEST), nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) fake (Marty)
wrote:
Coop wrote:
145kg is almost 25% overweight for aerobatics...
I think it's appalling. I was reading a report only a few days ago where a
pilot was scrutinised because of a takeoff weight 'only' 20kg in excess of
it's MTOW. If you read the report, there were other violations which
contributed towards the prang but the same kind of stupidity was evident.
ATSB Report VH-TUF - http://tinyurl.com/357oh4
Matt |
Good point.
How many GA pilots actually weigh their pax versus taking their word.
Then add in the headsets, camera, handheld GPS, PLB, drinks, nibbles,
wallet, maps, ERSA ........ all small incremental things but when you put
them on the scales together.......................
Amazing how it all adds up. Undoubtedly why the old T/O and Ldg charts had
a factor allowance.
But, according to two of our local media they were doing "acrobatics" - must
have been trying to take weight off 
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Fanelli
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
matt weber <mattheww (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote in
news:s5h44352lpicij8varris5brctvm1juo3s (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:
| Quote: | The reality is the weight is rarely known to better than about 1%. I
certainly don't recommend operating overweight, but I was on a early
QF 744 flight from LAX that probably departed LAX about 30,000 pounds
over weight. We were overweight on the stand and had to burn fuel to
get down to taxi weight, and then burn more at the end of the runway
to get down to what was though to be MGTOW.
Never heard how it had happened. The only reason the crew became aware
of the weight problem was in the first 8 hours they went through about
an extra 1000 pounds of fuel per hour. When you work the numbers,
1000 pounds per hour is about 30,000 pounds, or about 3.5% of MGTOW.
The Captain planned to have the baggage and cargo weighed as it came
off the aircraft.
The entire margins for the trip were consumed long before we got to
Australia, and ended up being forced to land at BNE for Fuel.
|
And you gleaned all this from a passenger seat?
Sounds like crap to me.
How did they know they were overweight for taxi?
If they sat there burning off fuel, how did they know when they were at
the right weight? or what they thought was the right weight?
If they knew they were overweight for taxi, then the paperwork must have
been wrong, or did they leave with a load sheet stating they were
overweight. If the paperwork showed the correct weight, did the captain
just have a hunch that he was overweight?
If the aircraft itself informed them it was overweight, why would they
leave without rectifying the situation?
Burning off fuel is very expensive, why not defuel it to remove the
excess?
I don't believe a word of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
RT. I didn't say shonkyness was exclusive to GA. What I was suggesting is
that it's simply more accepted - and wrong. I work in GA, and I see
carelessness and recklessness all the time and I don't like it. The
shonkyness of others is tainting an industry I quite enjoy. And the
negligence of others rubs off on what I do by association.
My point RT - and care to disagree with me if you will - is that rules,
regulations, limitations etc are there to be observed. Airlines (and
particularly Aussie jet operations) *tend* to do a better job of it.
| Quote: | RT wrote:
You jest. Care to comment on the Metroliner up north - or have you decided
that it is GA.
|
It was LCRPT, but GA by all accounts. You want me to comment on the
Transair2 arrival (which, mind you, was never published in the ATSB
report)? Have you even read the ATSB report? It's a comedy of stupidity
and serves to demonstrate the point I was making.
| Quote: | Care to comment on the dudes that went into the Florida swamp while they
were discussing what they should do with the undercarriage?
|
There are numerous examples of jets crashing because of a whole range of
reasons RT. We've got some good Aussie examples as well... such as the
Ansett 747 that landed with a retracted nosewheel in October 1994, and the
QF 747 that banged its cock in Bangkok in September 1999 - just to name a
couple. There are countless examples, and there will be countless more in
the future.
| Quote: | Mmm........................ Tenerife? How come these GA pilots are flying
747s?
|
Funny you mention Tenerife, because post this accident many airlines
didn't know what CRM was, and very few of them took it seriously. I hope
we've learned a little something in the 30 years since this occurred.
| Quote: | Would you like me to send you the pics of the BAe146 that cleaned up itself
and the airbridge when the pilots stuffed up the throttle settings?
|
Is this the incident where the moronic pilots are playing around and make
attempts at getting the nosewheel off the ground during the taxi with the
autothrottles in TKOF mode? What's your point? That stupid things happen
when people do stupid things? I don't dispute this!
| Quote: | Have you actually ever flown ANYTHING?
|
Yes.
| Quote: | As for your little story on the 747, and assuming that your story of
incompetence is correct, it demonstrates the kind of negligence one would
expect from Aeroflot or a dodgy Korean airline. Any incident like this
would be dealt with severely by internal management.
Oh - "internal management" - you're a bean counter - all is explained.
|
I'm saying that taking off overweight in an airliner is stupid. Remember
the whole "stupid things happen to stupid people" remark. Perhaps you
think it's okay?
| Quote: | Feel free to post to aus.pets and aus.sex_aids etc but best leave
aus.aviation to those who have at least a minimal clue about aviation.
|
You're right though RT, I don't know much so I'll go to aus.pets and ask
them why my goldfish never seems to remember who I am. I'll leave
aus.aviation to people who have a "minimal clue about aviation" like you.
Have a nice day my learned friend.
--
Posted at www.Usenet.com.au |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt weber
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:29 am Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
On Thu, 10 May 2007 00:50:35 GMT, Peter Fanelli
<fanelli (AT) bellsouth (DOT) removeme.net> wrote:
| Quote: | matt weber <mattheww (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote in
news:s5h44352lpicij8varris5brctvm1juo3s (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:
The reality is the weight is rarely known to better than about 1%. I
certainly don't recommend operating overweight, but I was on a early
QF 744 flight from LAX that probably departed LAX about 30,000 pounds
over weight. We were overweight on the stand and had to burn fuel to
get down to taxi weight, and then burn more at the end of the runway
to get down to what was though to be MGTOW.
Never heard how it had happened. The only reason the crew became aware
of the weight problem was in the first 8 hours they went through about
an extra 1000 pounds of fuel per hour. When you work the numbers,
1000 pounds per hour is about 30,000 pounds, or about 3.5% of MGTOW.
The Captain planned to have the baggage and cargo weighed as it came
off the aircraft.
The entire margins for the trip were consumed long before we got to
Australia, and ended up being forced to land at BNE for Fuel.
And you gleaned all this from a passenger seat?
Long conversation with the Captain over the Pacific on the flight |
deck. pre 9/11 such things were routinely permitted for P class
passengers.
| Quote: |
Sounds like crap to me.
How did they know they were overweight for taxi?
Because the Captain told us we were.
If they sat there burning off fuel, how did they know when they were at
the right weight? or what they thought was the right weight?
There are a series of dials available. On the older 747 they are at |
the flight engineer panels. The count off the fuel going into each
engine 10 pounds at a time. I assume the same functionality is
available on one of the displays in a glass two man cockpit.
So you can see the fuel go by 10 pounds at a time.
| Quote: |
If they knew they were overweight for taxi, then the paperwork must have
been wrong, or did they leave with a load sheet stating they were
overweight. If the paperwork showed the correct weight, did the captain
just have a hunch that he was overweight?
They knew from the load sheet they were overweight, and it is easier |
to burn a few thousand pounds on the stand, and a few thousand pounds
more at the end of the runway than it is to remove the fuel from the
aircraft.
| Quote: |
If the aircraft itself informed them it was overweight, why would they
leave without rectifying the situation?
Burning off fuel is very expensive, why not defuel it to remove the
excess?
Some time watch the gyrations you have to through to remove fuel from |
a commercial jet aircraft. Int he early 1990's I was at MSP, and we
were delayed about 2 hours to fly a 757 from MSP to PHX. The reason:
Fuel gauge inoperative, so to avoid a repeat of the Gimli glider, they
emptied the tanks, and then loaded fuel. Took about 90 minutes to
empty the tanks (which weren't exactly full to begin with, only about
20 minutes to fill them afterward)
Aircraft are designed to fueled, there is no nice way to remove fuel
that is already aboard short of pumping it overboard out the dump
vents, which is unacceptable on the ground.
| Quote: |
I don't believe a word of this.
I don't care whether you believe it or not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Fanelli
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:24 am Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
matt weber <mattheww (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote in
news:6rv643tluh4msl1ov2ao02p9djcup7ku52 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:
| Quote: |
Aircraft are designed to fueled, there is no nice way to remove fuel
that is already aboard short of pumping it overboard out the dump
vents, which is unacceptable on the ground.
I don't believe a word of this.
I don't care whether you believe it or not.
|
More bullshit, to defuel an aircraft you hook a truck up to the same
connections you fuel it with, open the defuel valve and draw fuel out
and back into the truck.
Have done it myself so don't tell me it cannot be done.
As for the inop guage procedure, the only time you need to empty a tank
and put a known quantity in it is when the inop gauge is on a tank
without drip or magna sticks. This will usually be the center tank. Even
then in most cases fuel will not be removed from the aircraft, you would
empty the center tank by transferring fuel from it to the wing tanks
unless there was insufficient room in the wings.
I guess now you'll tell me that in the 737 you cannot transfer fuel from
the center tank to the wings. Yep, most 737 pilots don't know that it
can be done. Most fuel truck drivers however can show you how. You be
surprised how many Southwest pilot's jaws I've seen drop when the fuel
truck driver shows them how to move fuel around their 737. Again, it
involves the defuel valve (located at the right hand wing root in 737
classics) and therefore can only be done while on the ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RT
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
"Marty" <nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) fake> wrote in message news:f1vsvj$6f3$1 (AT) aioe (DOT) org...
| Quote: | RT. I didn't say shonkyness was exclusive to GA. What I was suggesting is
that it's simply more accepted - and wrong. I work in GA, and I see
carelessness and recklessness all the time and I don't like it. The
shonkyness of others is tainting an industry I quite enjoy. And the
negligence of others rubs off on what I do by association.
My point RT - and care to disagree with me if you will - is that rules,
regulations, limitations etc are there to be observed. Airlines (and
particularly Aussie jet operations) *tend* to do a better job of it.
|
Yes, I disagree.
| Quote: | RT wrote:
You jest. Care to comment on the Metroliner up north - or have you
decided
that it is GA.
It was LCRPT, but GA by all accounts. You want me to comment on the
Transair2 arrival (which, mind you, was never published in the ATSB
report)? Have you even read the ATSB report?
|
Huh? The one that was never published? Do please try to getta grip!
| Quote: | It's a comedy of stupidity
and serves to demonstrate the point I was making.
Care to comment on the dudes that went into the Florida swamp while they
were discussing what they should do with the undercarriage?
There are numerous examples of jets crashing because of a whole range of
reasons RT. We've got some good Aussie examples as well... such as the
Ansett 747 that landed with a retracted nosewheel in October 1994, and the
QF 747 that banged its cock in Bangkok in September 1999 - just to name a
couple. There are countless examples, and there will be countless more in
the future. The shonkyness of others is tainting an industry I quite
enjoy. And the
negligence of others rubs off on what I do by association.
|
And this has to do with GA in the following ways........?
| Quote: | Mmm........................ Tenerife? How come these GA pilots are
flying
747s?
Funny you mention Tenerife, because "post" this accident many airlines
didn't know what CRM was, and very few of them took it seriously. I hope
we've learned a little something in the 30 years since this occurred.
|
I asssume you mean "pre"
| Quote: | Would you like me to send you the pics of the BAe146 that cleaned up
itself
and the airbridge when the pilots stuffed up the throttle settings?
Is this the incident where the moronic pilots are playing around and make
attempts at getting the nosewheel off the ground during the taxi with the
autothrottles in TKOF mode? What's your point? That stupid things happen
when people do stupid things? I don't dispute this!
|
And this has exactly what to do with GA?
| Quote: |
Have you actually ever flown ANYTHING?
Yes.
|
Ab initio on a 747 - or something bigger?
| Quote: | As for your little story on the 747, and assuming that your story of
incompetence is correct, it demonstrates the kind of negligence one
would
expect from Aeroflot or a dodgy Korean airline. Any incident like this
would be dealt with severely by internal management.
Oh - "internal management" - you're a bean counter - all is explained.
I'm saying that taking off overweight in an airliner is stupid. Remember
the whole "stupid things happen to stupid people" remark. Perhaps you
think it's okay?
|
Oh - these were GA pilots taking off overweight in an airliner. No wonder
**it happened.
| Quote: | Feel free to post to aus.pets and aus.sex_aids etc but best leave
aus.aviation to those who have at least a minimal clue about aviation.
You're right though RT, I don't know much so I'll go to aus.pets and ask
them why my goldfish never seems to remember who I am. I'll leave
aus.aviation to people who have a "minimal clue about aviation" like you.
Have a nice day my learned friend.
|
Good. That will make us all (except your goldfish) feel much safer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AA
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
Peter Fanelli wrote:
| Quote: | matt weber <mattheww (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote in
news:6rv643tluh4msl1ov2ao02p9djcup7ku52 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:
Aircraft are designed to fueled, there is no nice way to remove fuel
that is already aboard short of pumping it overboard out the dump
vents, which is unacceptable on the ground.
I don't believe a word of this.
I don't care whether you believe it or not.
More bullshit, to defuel an aircraft you hook a truck up to the same
connections you fuel it with, open the defuel valve and draw fuel out
and back into the truck.
Have done it myself so don't tell me it cannot be done.
|
I boarded a Virgin flight Melbourne for Cairns - departure delayed -
after some time over the PA came a request for 8 pax willing to spend
another night in Melbourne - (I think the deal was refund of half your
airfare, put up in a hotel for the night and on first flight next day)
Anyway they got their volunteers. Captain then came on and apologised,
saying the aircraft was overweight - he said it would take over an hour
to remove the excess fuel, which is why they asked for volunteers and
their baggage to offload. By the time they offloaded the luggage and got
under way it was nearly an hour late.
AA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Fanelli
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
AA <sirronnala (AT) REMOVE (DOT) yahoodotcom.au> wrote in
news:f21o30$5ep$1 (AT) otis (DOT) netspace.net.au:
| Quote: | Peter Fanelli wrote:
matt weber <mattheww (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote in
news:6rv643tluh4msl1ov2ao02p9djcup7ku52 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:
Aircraft are designed to fueled, there is no nice way to remove
fuel
that is already aboard short of pumping it overboard out the dump
vents, which is unacceptable on the ground.
I don't believe a word of this.
I don't care whether you believe it or not.
More bullshit, to defuel an aircraft you hook a truck up to the same
connections you fuel it with, open the defuel valve and draw fuel out
and back into the truck.
Have done it myself so don't tell me it cannot be done.
I boarded a Virgin flight Melbourne for Cairns - departure delayed -
after some time over the PA came a request for 8 pax willing to spend
another night in Melbourne - (I think the deal was refund of half your
airfare, put up in a hotel for the night and on first flight next day)
Anyway they got their volunteers. Captain then came on and apologised,
saying the aircraft was overweight - he said it would take over an
hour to remove the excess fuel, which is why they asked for volunteers
and their baggage to offload. By the time they offloaded the luggage
and got under way it was nearly an hour late.
AA
|
Now one thing that can complicate a defuel is the system in place at a
particular airport. You can't defuel into a hydrant system, so you need
a truck with room to accomodate the fuel. Not generally a problem at
airports where much of the fuelling is done by truck.
I wonder whose screw up led to it being overweight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt weber
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:37 am Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
On Thu, 10 May 2007 21:24:17 GMT, Peter Fanelli
<fanelli (AT) bellsouth (DOT) removeme.net> wrote:
| Quote: | matt weber <mattheww (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote in
news:6rv643tluh4msl1ov2ao02p9djcup7ku52 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:
Aircraft are designed to fueled, there is no nice way to remove fuel
that is already aboard short of pumping it overboard out the dump
vents, which is unacceptable on the ground.
I don't believe a word of this.
I don't care whether you believe it or not.
More bullshit, to defuel an aircraft you hook a truck up to the same
connections you fuel it with, open the defuel valve and draw fuel out
and back into the truck.
Have done it myself so don't tell me it cannot be done.
Obviously not on a large passeger jet with tanks scattered all over |
the aircraft.
Light aircraft generally have just wing tanks, and defueling them is
easy. just as you suggest.
I suggest you review the plumbing and tankage arrangements on a
747-400 sometime, and let me know how connecting a hose to a wing tank
is going to empty the center tank in the fuselage? It will flow into
the center tank almost by gravity, but the fuel system is generally
designed to feed fuel from remote tanks to tanks that feed the
engines. Concorde in fact had a specific 'feed' tank for each engine
(and an unholy number of fuel tanks scattered throughout the wing).
Removing fuel from a large commercial jet aircraft is nowhere near as
simple as you suggest.
| Quote: |
As for the inop guage procedure, the only time you need to empty a tank
and put a known quantity in it is when the inop gauge is on a tank
without drip or magna sticks. This will usually be the center tank. Even
then in most cases fuel will not be removed from the aircraft, you would
empty the center tank by transferring fuel from it to the wing tanks
unless there was insufficient room in the wings.
I guess now you'll tell me that in the 737 you cannot transfer fuel from
the center tank to the wings. Yep, most 737 pilots don't know that it
can be done. Most fuel truck drivers however can show you how. You be
surprised how many Southwest pilot's jaws I've seen drop when the fuel
truck driver shows them how to move fuel around their 737. Again, it
involves the defuel valve (located at the right hand wing root in 737
classics) and therefore can only be done while on the ground.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonz
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
Just a quick one, and forgive my ignorance, as I am only PPL rated.
With reference to fuel weights and densities.
OK, I'll pay that with Airlines/ large aircraft, fuel if uplifted at
weights, ie: they will take on ???thousands pounds, and burn ??lbs per hour,
and as far as weights are concerned taking on xxlbs at 20degressC, is
different than at 36degreeC, volume density will change per volume, but what
happens if you uplift 20,000lbs at 36degreesC, you're left on the hardstand
for a day or two, then fly with fuel at 18degreesC? Is all this factored in
on the airliners. I've heard that there can bee huge differences in volumes
of fuel, especially straight from the refinery at elevated Temps.
Again, I just need to clarify this for myself.
Thanks,
Rob.
"Peter Fanelli" <fanelli (AT) bellsouth (DOT) removeme.net> wrote in message
news:Xns992D556DD1A1Ffanellibellsouthnet (AT) 216 (DOT) 77.188.18...
| Quote: | AA <sirronnala (AT) REMOVE (DOT) yahoodotcom.au> wrote in
news:f21o30$5ep$1 (AT) otis (DOT) netspace.net.au:
Peter Fanelli wrote:
matt weber <mattheww (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote in
news:6rv643tluh4msl1ov2ao02p9djcup7ku52 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:
Aircraft are designed to fueled, there is no nice way to remove
fuel
that is already aboard short of pumping it overboard out the dump
vents, which is unacceptable on the ground.
I don't believe a word of this.
I don't care whether you believe it or not.
More bullshit, to defuel an aircraft you hook a truck up to the same
connections you fuel it with, open the defuel valve and draw fuel out
and back into the truck.
Have done it myself so don't tell me it cannot be done.
I boarded a Virgin flight Melbourne for Cairns - departure delayed -
after some time over the PA came a request for 8 pax willing to spend
another night in Melbourne - (I think the deal was refund of half your
airfare, put up in a hotel for the night and on first flight next day)
Anyway they got their volunteers. Captain then came on and apologised,
saying the aircraft was overweight - he said it would take over an
hour to remove the excess fuel, which is why they asked for volunteers
and their baggage to offload. By the time they offloaded the luggage
and got under way it was nearly an hour late.
AA
Now one thing that can complicate a defuel is the system in place at a
particular airport. You can't defuel into a hydrant system, so you need
a truck with room to accomodate the fuel. Not generally a problem at
airports where much of the fuelling is done by truck.
I wonder whose screw up led to it being overweight. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Ewing
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: Re: RV-4 Crash in Vic "Over Weight" |
|
|
"Fonz" <r (AT) removeme (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:464d00c7$1 (AT) dnews (DOT) tpgi.com.au...
| Quote: | Just a quick one, and forgive my ignorance, as I am only PPL rated.
With reference to fuel weights and densities.
OK, I'll pay that with Airlines/ large aircraft, fuel if uplifted at
weights, ie: they will take on ???thousands pounds, and burn ??lbs per
hour, and as far as weights are concerned taking on xxlbs at 20degressC,
is different than at 36degreeC, volume density will change per volume, but
what happens if you uplift 20,000lbs at 36degreesC, you're left on the
hardstand for a day or two, then fly with fuel at 18degreesC? Is all this
factored in on the airliners. I've heard that there can bee huge
differences in volumes of fuel, especially straight from the refinery at
elevated Temps.
Again, I just need to clarify this for myself.
Thanks,
Rob.
|
Rob - for large quantities of fuel, weight is the preferred measurement
because it is independent of other factors, particularly temperature. Also
the energy you derive from fuel relates to the weight of fuel burnt (kg per
hour), so this gives you more accurate results than using litres per hour.
For small aircraft, fuel volume is more convenient as that is how it is
dispensed, and for most purposes it is an acceptable approximation.
Cheers,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
