Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Pacomartin

Bolivia will take drastic measures to determine who was responsible for this week's plane crash that virtually wiped out Brazil's Chapecoense soccer team, President Evo Morales told reporters.

It is nice to know that Bolivia will close the barn door. What is needed is standardized hours for fuel and runway lights at airports, reasonable fuel prices and actual adherence to scheduled hours.

Quote: Fleastiff

It is nice to know that Bolivia will close the barn door. What is needed is standardized hours for fuel and runway lights at airports, reasonable fuel prices and actual adherence to scheduled hours.

They were going to stop at Cobija airport up until right before they took off. The commercial flight came in late, and Cojiba was closed.

Another op ed at Airways stresses the importance of investigating this accident (agreed), and advocates not treating the crew like idiots. Well, the writer brings up other fuel starvation crashed (notably leaving out the Gimli Glider and the Varig lost plane). I do agree the captain, who appers to have made the decision to fly with insufficient fuel, wasn't an idiot. he was criminally irresponsible.

Most fuel starvation crashes involve negligence of some kind, usually by the cockpit crew. The Varig plane is a good example. The crew was so distracted they neglected to check they were even flying in the right direction. Upon reaching a flight time matching expectations, they tried to determine where they were. And had that flight been anywhere other than brazil, they might have found an airport to land on (few airports in the Amazon jungle) For that matter had the Gimli incident taken place in Brazil, they'd have had to crash land in the jungle as well.

The Lamia captain knew he didn't have enough fuel. He knew if he missed the approach, he wouldn't be able to attempt a second one or to divert to Bogota. He knew he couldn't even enter a holding pattern (though he did anyway). And the reports that he'd done flights like this one before, only means he was an accident waiting to happen.

You don't push the range of a plane, ever. Not on purpose. I can imagine some really unlikely scenarios that would push the range in an emergency. But that's now what happened here. Had the captain survived the crash, he'd be criminally liable.

The last is not common at all. Most accidents, even those due to negligence, don't end up in criminal charges. But in this case the captain attempted something extremely risky on purpose, with full knowledge. true, he didn't set out to crash on final approach, but he knew the risk of doing so was incredibly high.

Yeah, Gimli Glider was pure luck and gliding skill... how often is a jumbo jet pilot also an experienced glider pilot used to making no-go-around landings?

Varig: Soccer was so distracting they didn't even realize they were heading into the sunshine and so had to be going mainly west rather than mostly north. Passengers, however, noticed and spoke to the stewardess who of course was politely re-assuring and didn't bother the flight crew with silly worries from passengers.

Busting minimums in foul weather is common too. One newly hired Aviation Manager at a manufacturing company with lots of plants in remote rural areas found out his pilots were routinely descending below the Minimum Descent Altitude in hopes that they would spot the runway when they got below the clouds. He wrote a memo about the cost of losing a Plant Manager, VP of Sales and Chief Technician in a crash. So the company promptly bought a fleet of small vans and told the pilots: If you can't land legally at the closest airport, fly to where you can land safely and we will come pick you up, but don't bust minimums and hope.

World's Newest Longest Flight announced: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38280722

Or somehting along those lines. Apparently it will take 17 hours. That's an insane amount of time to fly.

Quote: Nareed

World's Newest Longest Flight announced: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38280722

The 14,498km flight will take 17 hours from Perth Australia to London.
It will beat the current world's longest Dreamliner flight, United Airlines UA #1 which is 13,593 km from San Francisco to Singapore.

It will also beat the other two longest commercial flights with an A380
Auckland to Dubai on Emirates EK #449 14,200 km began on 2 March 2016
Dallas/Fort Worth to Sydney on Qantas QF #8 13,804 km began on 29 September 2014

The record may only hold for a very short time as Singapore Airlines, using the airline's brand new Airbus A350-900ULR aircraft, is planning to restore the Singapore to New York, by 2018. That distance is over 15,000km. Singapore Airlines has not announced a month, while the Perth to London flight will begin on March 2018.

Quote: Pacomartin

The record may only hold for a very short time as Singapore Airlines, using the airline's brand new Airbus A350-900ULR aircraft, is planning to restore the Singapore to New York, by 2018. That distance is over 15,000km.

We'll see. The 787 and A350 seem to be giving lots of people ideas.

There is, or there should be, an absolute limit, which is about 20,000 km, as that is half-way around the world. A flight longer than that, would be shorter if taken in the opposite direction. That said, prevailing winds could make the longer flight shorter in duration, or simply more economical.

No plane comes even close to that, but one should eventually. When that happens, any longer flights will require pre-planned holding patterns or non-direct routes to break a record :)

I wonder, though, whether some kind of long range supersonic plane will eventually make these long flights more sensible.

I can see how one could easily survive, even enjoy, a 17-hour flight in first or business class, with lots of room, a flat bed, lots of food and tons of entertainment options. But in economy it would be hell. Qantas could make the situation bearable by configuring 8 seats in economy, but I doubt they will

Quote: Pacomartin

The 14,498km flight will take 17 hours from Perth Australia to London.

Uh, hold it a minute. Ain't Perth got what they call a 'monsoon' season and ain't the weather over the UK far different in Winter than in Summer?
So won't this affect the length of the flight?

Quote: Nareed

There is, or there should be, an absolute limit, which is about 20,000 km, as that is half-way around the world.

There seems to be a desire for a plane that can fly 15,000 km. In fact that route has flown commercially starting in 2003, but was discontinued in 2013 as non - economical.

15,345km Newark to Singapore on Singapore Airlines
17,000km London to Sydney, AU
18,300km London to Auckland, NZ
19,600km Buenos Aires to Shanghai

The London to Sydney nonstop has long been a dream, only partially fulfilled by London to Perth. Qantas may choose to refuel and fly the same plane from Perth onto Sydney (or Melbourne). That way people can board and begin to get into sleep mode without the need to change planes in Singapore or Hong Kong or Dubai.

I doubt you will see a commercial jet that can fly 20,000 km in your lifetime. There is simply not enough of a market to connect a pair of antipodes (a name borrowed by makeup company). Antipodes are two poles on opposite sides of the earth, but it is a name commonly associated with New Zealand as it is the largest British colony nearly on the opposite side of the Earth as London.


Perth is not in the major monsoon rainfall section of the country. It is a little far south.

Quote: Pacomartin

There seems to be a desire for a plane that can fly 15,000 km. In fact that route has flown commercially starting in 2003, but was discontinued in 2013 as non - economical.

Routs that long are exquisitely sensitive to fuel prices, too.

Quote:

I doubt you will see a commercial jet that can fly 20,000 km in your lifetime.

Maybe not. though the tendency is towards longer range, this would be a huge leap rather than an incremental one.

But who knows. If we find antigravity... :)

Quote:

There is simply not enough of a market to connect a pair of antipodes (a name borrowed by makeup company). Antipodes are two poles on opposite sides of the earth, but it is a name commonly associated with New Zealand as it is the largest British colony nearly on the opposite side of the Earth as London.

Yes, well, the Earth's surface being mostly ocean, chances are your antipode is a wet, empty, desolate piece of the Pacific or Atlantic. and no one runs flights to coordinates on the Indian ocean, either... Even Antarctica has only water an ice at the opposite pole ;)