Why nobody should ever fly on a 777

[Herr-Berbunch]

Please people, stay safe if you're travelling on a 777 soon - they have difficulty staying airborne with no fuel!

CNN's aviation experts don't say if this affects any other aircraft, Boeing or otherwise. Phew.

http://i.imgur.com/pvc9xGl.jpg

[Schroeder]

OMG oh noes!!!!

Even the gliders I flew could maintain altitude without fuel if I found thermal lift. If that plane can't even outperform a glider then Boeing should go building toy planes!:hmph:
At least the expert found it out in time to warn everybody about it. Just scandalous!:/\\!!


:D

[NeonSamurai]

I see CNN's excellence in journalism continues unabated.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok the way its worded is funny but what i'm guessing they're trying to say is if a 777 runs out of fuel it'll struggle to glide as well as other planes would so there'd be a higher chance of hitting the ground before making it to an airport.

[Oberon]

Could say that for most* modern aircraft, without fly-by-wire they take on all the control aspects of a breezeblock.

*most is underlined and in italics because I'm aware there are exceptions to this rule, such as the A10.

[Admiral Halsey]

Could say that for most* modern aircraft, without fly-by-wire they take on all the control aspects of a breezeblock.

*most is underlined and in italics because I'm aware there are exceptions to this rule, such as the A10.

True but what i'm guessing they're trying to say is the 777 would be worse then normal.

[Buddahaid]

Well unless they're meant to catch thermals no aircraft maintains altitude with empty tanks no matter how flat the glide angle is. Pure stupid reporting.

[CCIP]

There's also no aerodynamic reason for the 777 to be worse at gliding than any comparable plane. It's a function of the lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio, which is approximately 19-20 for a 777 and is more or less the same as any other large plane of its generation - and better than 17-18 on the 747s, for example. Planes with drastically worse L/D ratios than their competitors would be pretty hard to sell (not so much because of gliding, but because L/D ratios also happen to be one of the main factors in determining fuel consumption).

[Aktungbby]

Please people, stay safe if you're travelling on a 777 soon - they have difficulty staying airborne with no fuel!

CNN's aviation experts don't say if this affects any other aircraft, Boeing or otherwise. Phew.


No more than any other airliner. Actually I found the 17:1 glide ratio of the 747 by googling. I couldn't find anything for the 777, but in general, jet wings are designed in such a way that the glide ratios for these aircraft are broadly the same. A clean 727-200 has a glide ratio of 15-17:1. A clean MD-80 has a glide ratio of 28:1. A clean 747-200 has a glide ratio of 17:1 as well. The glide ratio of 17:1 means that for every 17 units the aircraft travels forward, it loses 1 unit of height. So if it's cruising at 40,000', it will travel (40000 feet x 17 feet = 680,000 feet) = 111.914 nautical miles using google convert. So that gives us a longest possible glide from 40,000 feet. In practice, these glides are actually worse because pilots are busy, stressed, and are initially guessing at glide speeds and angles. I know the glide ratio for the Cessna 172 I fly is 9:1; which is for every 1,000 feet of altitude I will cover about 9,000 feet which is 1.7 miles. Let's say a 737 has a glide ratio of almost double 9:1 like 17:1, if it's 10,000 feet in the air and 32 miles away from LAX, it will actually glide right onto a runway, Having practiced nighttime dead stick- no electronics landings at San Jose(Norm Mineta Int'l Airport) myself, in my 'wild youth' with a miserable 9:1 glide ratio, The superior handling of a 777 at 17:1 really makes the concern a non-issue IMHO. GOLDENRIVET is the better go-to on this sort of thing IMHO but I'm not far off the mark.

[NeonSamurai]

I wonder if Wolf Blitzer had anything to do with the report. He was always infamous for being CNN's know-it-all on just about everything, and getting absolutely nothing right (seriously just about every other word that came out of his mouth was utter nonsense). Never understood how that idiot managed to get promoted on top of it.

Either way, I'm not at all surprised that CNN goofed again, its like their main talent or something :roll:

[CCIP]

By the way, that report was from late March 2014 so it's not a recent goof!

[Gargamel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Or better yet: (NSFW! or kids! or most people actually, it's Kevin Smith just rambling) http://www.smodcast.com/episodes/true-tales-of-canadian-heroism/ (http://www.smodcast.com/episodes/true-tales-of-canadian-heroism/)
Story starts at about the 13:00 mark

[Betonov]

Isn't 777 the one with the huge for it's size engines. That might explain since they'd present a very large drag on it.

[NeonSamurai]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Or better yet: (NSFW! or kids! or most people actually, it's Kevin Smith just rambling) http://www.smodcast.com/episodes/true-tales-of-canadian-heroism/ (http://www.smodcast.com/episodes/true-tales-of-canadian-heroism/)
Story starts at about the 13:00 mark


My parents knew the captain of that flight, he was one of our neighbors when I was a little kid.

[Jimbuna]

Nothing much to do with the topic but the last time I flew across the pond it was in a 777 and I often wondered if I'd be safer in a 747, aplane with four engines as opposed to two.

[Catfish]

Well, the headline read not able to "... maintain altitude, without fuel" :haha:

The only safe thing is, no plane will be lost in the skies. I think this is rather comforting :O:

[Aktungbby]

^On that: at approx. 8 lbs a gallon, no fuel would lighten the aircraft...increasing it's glide-distance somewhat even for a harassed stressed-out pilot.:up: Plus pilots tend to play and train for the 'what ifs' game (except at Malaysian Airlines:nope:) and after Sullenberger's dramatic lesson on the Hudson River, they're all thinking about it and how to do it properly in their respective aircraft types. At worst, I always knew where the closest freeway was....:timeout:

[CCIP]

Haha, for the last time, there's no issue with the 777. The engines do create drag, but it's nothing extraordinary and compensated for by the wings. It doesn't make a whole lot of relative difference whether they're spinning or not - the L/D ratio remains fairly consistent. The 777 is no worse at gliding than it should be, and better than older-generation planes like the 747. It's probably insignificantly worse than an A330, but that's only because the latter has a more advanced wing design.

Nothing much to do with the topic but the last time I flew across the pond it was in a 777 and I often wondered if I'd be safer in a 747, aplane with four engines as opposed to two.

It's not any less safe. That used to be the thinking, but once it was realized how extremely unlikely even a single modern jet engine is to fail, it became apparent that 4 engines is actually a disadvantage in every other way. Today, engines have an IFSD (inflight shutdown) probability of something like once every 400,000 hours. That's for one engine! The probability of two engines shutting down at the same time for unrelated reasons is one in hundreds of billions of hours - and if something severe enough happens that would actually knock out both engines on a modern airliner, it would likely knock out 4 just the same (e.g. if you fly into a volcano ash cloud, 4 engines aren't really going to help you).

ETOPS (Extended Twin-engine Ops) regulations that allow twinjets to operate far from land came in 30 years ago. To this day, ETOPS has not failed for any mechanical reasons, as far as I know. There are now planes that have up to 370min ETOPS certification (i.e. they've proven capable of flying on just one engine for over 6 hours without compromising safety). There has never been a dual IFSD in the entire history of ETOPS (except for reasons external to the engines). That's pretty remarkable and I'd say as good of an evidence as you need to know that twin-engine planes are really darn good.

[Torplexed]

I see a British Airways 777 just caught on fire in Las Vegas preparing to depart to London/Gatwick. Happily no deaths, just two minor injuries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11852714/British-Airways-plane-on-fire-at-Las-Vegas-latest.html


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03433/COaspLqUwAA2LL0_jp_3433554b.jpg

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/11ae819713542257d310c2b819298706c1e7d852/0_0_1446_868/master/1446.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&

[CCIP]

That's nasty! :o

Yeah, that one will pretty certainly be a writeoff, therefore stays in Vegas.

[Aktungbby]

http://www.tailstrike.com/Photos/Aeromexico%20498.JPG August 31, 1986. N4891F, callsign Piper 4891 Foxtrot, was a privately-operated Piper PA-28-181 Archer owned by the Kramer family(3) en route from Torrance to Big Bear City, California. The two aircraft collided in mid-air over Cerritos, California, killing all 67 aboard both aircraft and 15 people on the ground. In addition, 8 persons on the ground sustained minor injuries from the crash. I still think about this one...a lot:nope:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/AeroMexico498_Annotated.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/CerritosAirDisasterImpactPoints.png/800px-CerritosAirDisasterImpactPoints.png

[CCIP]

Well, that's not a glide issue - it basically took out all vertical controls of the aircraft and was unrecoverable. No amount of gliding capability would've helped that aircraft, because there was no longer a way to control it.

Doesn't even take a collision - a similar loss of control befell the unfortunate Alaska 261, all because of a faulty worn down jackscrew: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjw1GoAWXV4

[AngusJS]

What awful engineering. The A380 can not only easily maintain altitude with no fuel, it can also take off with no fuel as well!

[Jimbuna]

What awful engineering. The A380 can not only easily maintain altitude with no fuel, it can also take off with no fuel as well!

A380 it is then :)

[Gargamel]

My parents knew the captain of that flight, he was one of our neighbors when I was a little kid.

That's epically cool. You might want to take a listen to that podcast then. As goofy and weird as Smith and Mosier are, they do paint the pilots in a good light, albeit a weird one.

[Betonov]

Not to mention that Air Japan 747 that lost it's rear controls surfaces after a rapid decompression in the tail cabin pressure wall cut the control lines to the tail.

[NeonSamurai]

That's epically cool. You might want to take a listen to that podcast then. As goofy and weird as Smith and Mosier are, they do paint the pilots in a good light, albeit a weird one.

I've seen him on the tv series Mayday. According to my parents he was a really nice guy. I should also have said that they knew him at about the same time this event happened. Got to love how Air Canada treated the two of them after the event by demoting them both.

[Aktungbby]

Got to love how Air Canada treated the two of them after the event by demoting them both.
That was a temporary 'slap on the wrist' : In 1985 the pilots were awarded the first ever Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_A%C3%A9ronautique_Internation ale) Diploma for Outstanding Airmanship. On the 25th anniversary of the incident in 2008, pilots Pearson and Quintal were celebrated in a parade in Gimli, and a mural was dedicated to commemorate the landing. On her retirement flight to the Mojave Desert: Flight AC7067, "the Gimli Glider" was captained by Jean-Marc Bélanger, a former head of the Air Canada Pilots Association, while captains Robert Pearson and Maurice Quintal were on board to oversee the flight from Montreal to California's Mojave Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Air_and_Space_Port). Also on board were three of the six flight attendants who were on Flight 143. [wiki] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/24/Gimli_glider.JPG/260px-Gimli_glider.JPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gimli_glider.JPG)<from this...to this at Mojave dismantled but not scrapped as of 2014> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Aca-767-C-GAUN-604-080201-01-8.jpg/220px-Aca-767-C-GAUN-604-080201-01-8.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aca-767-C-GAUN-604-080201-01-8.jpg):salute: Still in the 2012 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjaoR7Zk2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjaoR7Zk2s)

[NeonSamurai]

Wasn't exactly temporary, Air Canada had tried to blame the entire incident on the pilots and the ground crew. The demotion was rescinded after appealing the decision, due to public pressure and the fact that the Aviation Safety Board vindicated the pilots and crew and laid the blame squarely at Air Canada's feet.

The award was because Captain Pearson pulled off a nigh impossible landing almost perfectly (something that in simulation other pilots were unable to duplicate), and the award is not connected in any way to Air Canada.

[Gargamel]

Well, they did screw up the math to start with...... Whether or not that's AC's or the pilots' fault is neither here nor there. They were faced with an impossible no win situation and pulled off an amazing feat.

[Platapus]

Well, the headline read not able to "... maintain altitude, without fuel" :haha:

The only safe thing is, no plane will be lost in the skies. I think this is rather comforting :O:

With aircraft, take-offs are voluntary; landings are mandatory. :yep:

[NeonSamurai]

Well, they did screw up the math to start with...... Whether or not that's AC's or the pilots' fault is neither here nor there. They were faced with an impossible no win situation and pulled off an amazing feat.

The problem apparently was that the airline had not given them proper conversion ratios for converting pounds of fuel into liters. So the captain's math was right, just they were using the supplied erroneous conversion value. The other problem was they had not been given proper training regarding properly calculating fuel in metric values, and for some reason Air Canada had only started to switch from Imperial to Metric, but only for certain planes. There were other issues too, which is why the Aviation Safety Board cleared both the ground crew and pilots.