Have you ever wondered.....

[Islandboy]

....about the answers to questions of the mostly useless variety? But you’ve just gotta know? I do, but then I was never like the rest of the kids.

For example, a jetliner cruising high over the Pacific at 30,000 feet suddenly loses engine power completely. How far will it go before it reaches zero on the altimeter?

I figure we’re a pretty diverse bunch here, and someone will likely have a qualified estimate. Knowing will at least help with my drink order if the situation ever arises.

Consider this a safe place to post any other burning questions that keep you awake at night. 

[El Presidente]

Smithy would be all over this. "Useless information " is his specialty 

let's see how this rolls over the weekend. A sampler to the most outstanding question and answer. 

[TBird55]

20 minutes ago, Islandboy said:

....about the answers to questions of the mostly useless variety? But you’ve just gotta know? I do, but then I was never like the rest of the kids.

For example, a jetliner cruising high over the Pacific at 30,000 feet suddenly loses engine power completely. How far will it go before it reaches zero on the altimeter?

I figure we’re a pretty diverse bunch here, and someone will likely have a qualified estimate. Knowing will at least help with my drink order if the situation ever arises.

Consider this a safe place to post any other burning questions that keep you awake at night. 

Depending on the wind, and size of plane, a 747 - around 100 miles give or take. 

[LLC]

THE GIMLI GLIDER

It was 35 years ago that a white-knuckle Air Canada flight, and miraculous landing, would thrust Gimli into international spotlight.

On July 23rd, 1983, Air Canada Flight 143 carrying 69 passengers was scheduled to fly from Montreal to Edmonton.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

But the plane ran out of fuel while flying over northwestern Ontario.

Thankfully, it was being piloted by Captain Bob Pearson, who had been trained as a glider pilot.

He was able to safely land the Boeing 767 safely on Gimli's defunct airstrip.

The plane would become known as the Gimli Glider.

The Air Canada Boeing 767, a.k.a the Gimli Glider, on the abandoned RCAF airstrip. (Wayne Glowacki/Winnipeg Free Press via Canadian Press)

Decades later, people in the Manitoba town, and around the world, are still fascinated with the story, says Barb Gluck, president of the Gimli Glider exhibit.

"Because it's a happy story, and we really understand that when people are here, and they love the skill that it took for it to happen. They are always interested in the impact it had on aviation and the changes as a result of it," she said.

"And the fact that people walked away from it, thinking for 17 minutes that maybe they wouldn't walk away from it."

The Boeing 767 was the first metric plane to fly in Canada, which caused the miscalculation in fuel.

The Fuel Quantity Information System computer on Flight 143 was malfunctioning, so ground crew in Montreal loaded the fuel manually using calculations involving the specific gravity of jet fuel.

But the crew used imperial measurements, not metric, so the plane had only half the fuel it needed to reach Edmonton.

It began to run out of gas near Red Lake, Ont., a little over 200 kilometres (124 miles) from Gimli.

Retired Air Canada pilot Robert Pearson waves to the crowd in Gimli, Man., on July 23, 2008, the 25th anniversary of the incident. Pearson will be back in Gimli on Monday for a meet-and-greet. (Joe Bryksa/Winnipeg Free Press via Canadian Press)

So many things could have gone wrong. A car race was taking place on the airstrip when the plane made its landing. There was also a high school reunion happening in a hangar nearby "that relished the fact that the plane didn't come down on them," Gluck said. 

"Many other things could have happened that didn't," Gluck said.

"So it's just a great story overall."

[slowsmoke]

13 minutes ago, TBird55 said:

Depending on the wind, and size of plane, a 747 - around 100 miles give or take. 

So about how many drinks, err, minutes, is that?

[oliverdst]

I didn't know this Gimli story but hard to believe it ran out of fuel.

I think at the very moment the jets stop working the plane fall like a rock. Not 90 degrees of course.

@nino ?

 

My question is: why sugar makes things sweeter? I mean, we don't feel taste of sugar. We feel the taste of the aliment but sweeter - and not the taste of the aliment + sugar. Same thing with salt. I know, I am not being clear but I hope some of you see my point.

[TBird55]

29 minutes ago, slowsmoke said:

So about how many drinks, err, minutes, is that?

I think i would forgo the drinks, and have 3 or 4 good shots. We are only talking about 15min or so.

[prodigy]

I used to fly rc airplanes with my grandpa. He was a self taught engineer, spoke 7 languages, hailed from Russian royalty before the bolshevik revolution, helped allied soldiers relocate displaced people at the end of ww2, narrowly avoided being sent to Korea after being drafted the same year my dad was born, then worked for naval intelligence for 38 years training dolphins and seals to sniff out mines and explosives, and was intensely recruited by the CIA but couldn't pass a background check because he still had immediate family living in communist Russia. I'm sure he could answer your question if he were still around, but I was just the kid that kept crashing his cool airplanes into trees so i know it's hard to keep them voodoo magic things in the air lol.

 

There's a small chance these pictures are classified, so please dont share them elsewhere...

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[MIKA27]

4 hours ago, Islandboy said:

....about the answers to questions of the mostly useless variety? But you’ve just gotta know? I do, but then I was never like the rest of the kids.

For example, a jetliner cruising high over the Pacific at 30,000 feet suddenly loses engine power completely. How far will it go before it reaches zero on the altimeter?

Hey Island boy, great thread.

I'll have a stab at the question, hope someone knows the full answer.

My guess is the jetliner could glide/travel around 150 km or 93 miles.

This is based on the fact that almost all commercial planes have a glide ratio of 15:1 and 20:1. So say it's a 747 (Glide ration is around 15:1/17.1) , it would as such (Loosely) glide for about 20 minutes under favorable conditions. 

[Islandboy]

Some excellent answers so far, now I know. Under the circumstances, chugtugash is probably out of the question, but 2 out of 3 is a definite maybe 

 

[ponfed]

I have a real one now. 

I`d like someone to explain to the group the concept of coal gas, or city gas, as an utility in big cities in the 19th and 20th century.

When did it start being used, when was it replaced with natural gasses. How is it produced from coal, or maybe other carbon forms.

Any interesting or weird factoid associated with it`s use, any legal battles, technological challenges, unintended consequences and such 

would be appreciated. 

 

I don`t know why I picked this subject and these questions, but expand on them as you wish.

 

[Nino]

7 hours ago, oliverdst said:

I didn't know this Gimli story but hard to believe it ran out of fuel.

I think at the very moment the jets stop working the plane fall like a rock. Not 90 degrees of course.

@nino ?

@oliverdst Very true that incident - and yes, planes will glide, not fall like a rock, if they run out of fuel ( the glide ratio is explained in a previous comment).

There was another incredible incident with a Canadian airplane where it glided 120 km over the Atlantic after both engines failed and landed safely at Lajes, Azores saving all 306 passengers ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
 

Flight TS 236 took off from Toronto at 00:52 (UTC) on Friday, August 24, 2001 (local time: 8:52 pm (ET) on Thursday, August 23), bound for Lisbon, Portugal. There were 293 passengers and thirteen crew members on board. The aircraft was an Airbus A330-243 registered as C-GITS^[2] that first flew on March 17, 1999,^[3] configured with 362 seats and placed in service by Air Transat on April 28, 1999.^[3] It was powered by two Rolls Royce Trent 772B-60 engines capable of delivering 71,100 lbf (316 kN) thrust each. Leaving the gate in Toronto, the aircraft had 46.9 tonnes of fuel on board, 4.5 tonnes more than required by regulations.^{[1][4][Note 1]}

Unknown to the pilots, at 04:38, fuel began to leak from the right engine.^[4](p23) At 05:03 UTC, more than 4 hours into the flight, the pilots noticed low oil temperature and high oil pressure on engine #2.^[4](pp7,23) Although these readings were an indirect result of the fuel leak, there was no obvious reason for the pilots to consider that as the cause. Consequently, Captain Robert Piché, who had 16,800 hours of flight experience,^[4](p12) and First Officer Dirk DeJager, who had 4,800 flight hours,^[4](p12) suspected they were false warnings and shared that opinion with their maintenance control centre, who advised them to monitor the situation.^[4](p56)

At 05:36 UTC, the pilots received a warning of fuel imbalance. They followed a standard procedure to remedy the imbalance by transferring fuel from the left wing tank to the right wing tank. Unknown to the pilots, the aircraft had developed a fuel leak in a line to the #2 (right) engine. The transferred fuel was lost through that leak. The fractured fuel line, which was leaking at about one gallon per second, caused a higher than normal fuel flow through the fuel-oil heat exchanger (FOHE), which in turn led to a drop in oil temperature and a rise in oil pressure for the #2 engine.^[5]

At 05:45 UTC, the pilots decided to divert to Lajes Air Base in the Azores. They declared a fuel emergency with Santa Maria Oceanic air traffic control three minutes later.

At 06:13 UTC, while still 150 nautical miles (280 km) from Lajes and at 39,000 feet (12,000 m), engine #2 flamed out due to fuel starvation.^[6] Captain Piché then initiated a descent to 33,000 feet (10,000 m), which was the proper single-engine altitude for the weight of the plane at that time. Ten minutes later, the crew sent a Mayday to Santa Maria Oceanic air traffic control.

Three minutes later, at 06:26 UTC and approximately 65 nautical miles (120 km; 75 mi) from Lajes Air Base, engine #1 also flamed out requiring the plane to glide the remaining distance.^[4](p8) Without engine power, the plane lost its primary source of electrical power. The emergency ram air turbine deployed automatically to provide essential power for critical sensors and instruments to fly the aircraft. However, the aircraft lost its main hydraulic power, which operates the flaps, alternate brakes, and spoilers. The slats would still be powered, however, when the flaps #1 position was selected.

Military air traffic controllers guided the aircraft to the airport with their radar system. The descent rate of the plane was about 2,000 feet (600 metres) per minute. They calculated they had about 15 to 20 minutes left before they would be forced to ditch in the ocean. The air base was sighted a few minutes later. Captain Piché had to execute one 360 degree turn, and then a series of "S" turns, to dissipate excess altitude.

At 06:45 UTC, the plane touched down hard, approximately 1,030 feet (310 m) past the threshold of Runway 33, at a speed of approximately 200 knots (370 km/h), bounced once and then touched down again, approximately 2,800 feet (850 m) from the threshold. Maximum emergency braking was applied and retained, and the plane came to a stop 7,600 feet (2,300 m) from the threshold of the 10,000-foot (3,000 m) runway. Since the anti-skid and brake modulation systems were inoperative, the eight main wheels locked up; the tires abraded and fully deflated within 450 feet (140 m).^[4](p11) Fourteen passengers and two crew members suffered minor injuries, while two passengers suffered serious injuries during the evacuation of the aircraft. The plane suffered structural damage to the main landing gear and the lower fuselage.

[Islandboy]

So it would seem Canadians are quite skilled at piloting aircraft, but could use a little work on their fuel management

[Islandboy]

Here’s another question I often ponder: Who came up with the concept of naming hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones? And who has the actual job of doing so? Is it done each year by committee, or is an employee simply tasked with this? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Scotch&Stogie]

14 minutes ago, Islandboy said:

Here’s another question I often ponder: Who came up with the concept of naming hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones? And who has the actual job of doing so? Is it done each year by committee, or is an employee simply tasked with this? Inquiring minds want to know.

It was sometime in the 50s. Some US weather branch figured out it would be easier to give the storms unique names rather than referring to them by year and number of formation. This made it easier for ships crossing the Atlantic to know what the storms they were trying to avoid were doing. 

[joshhooper7]

If this ever happens to you don't fret! Me and my air traffic control brethren will surely get everyone out of your way so you don't die!

[Nino]

50 minutes ago, Islandboy said:

Here’s another question I often ponder: Who came up with the concept of naming hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones? And who has the actual job of doing so? Is it done each year by committee, or is an employee simply tasked with this? Inquiring minds want to know.

I believe these people came up with the idea - the National Hurricane Center :

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

I always check the website for updates and information - highly interesting !

[TBird55]

If a frog had wings, would he still bump his ass?

[El Presidente]

I have a question. 

I wear sterling silver rings a large stainless steel watch and with stainless steel bracelet and belt with a stainless steel belt buckle. 

If I walk through airport security scanner the alarm beeps. 

I walk back out, take off my belt and walk back through.....green light comes up and I am all clear. 

Why doesn't the alarm/scanner go off?  I still have on my SS watch and rings etc?  The watch is the same metal as the belt buckle?

 

[Derboesekoenig]

4 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

I have a question. 

I wear sterling silver rings a large stainless steel watch and with stainless steel bracelet and belt with a stainless steel belt buckle. 

If I walk through airport security scanner the alarm beeps. 

I walk back out, take off my belt and walk back through.....green light comes up and I am all clear. 

Why doesn't the alarm/scanner go off?  I still have on my SS watch and rings etc?  The watch is the same metal as the belt buckle?

 

The belt is a different quality stainless steel. The others are made of a higher quality non-ferromagnetic, stainless steel, which will not set off the larger scanners/alarms.

[Nino]

1 hour ago, El Presidente said:

I have a question. 

I wear sterling silver rings a large stainless steel watch and with stainless steel bracelet and belt with a stainless steel belt buckle. 

If I walk through airport security scanner the alarm beeps. 

I walk back out, take off my belt and walk back through.....green light comes up and I am all clear. 

Why doesn't the alarm/scanner go off?  I still have on my SS watch and rings etc?  The watch is the same metal as the belt buckle?

 

The scan shows the position of the metal on your body. Belt being around it is suspicious, take it off and rings on your fingers or watch on your wrist is no problem - I guess.... never beeen able to find out myself ... ?

[Cayman17]

1 hour ago, El Presidente said:

I have a question. 

I wear sterling silver rings a large stainless steel watch and with stainless steel bracelet and belt with a stainless steel belt buckle. 

If I walk through airport security scanner the alarm beeps. 

I walk back out, take off my belt and walk back through.....green light comes up and I am all clear. 

Why doesn't the alarm/scanner go off?  I still have on my SS watch and rings etc?  The watch is the same metal as the belt buckle?

 

TSA told me it’s the amount of metal that is the determining factor. Large metal buckle sets it off so you have to take your belt off.  Small rings, glasses do not. I would think a watch would set it off but mine does not. 

But in the end, who knows?  On the way to Chicago, my shoes did not trigger the alarm.  Leaving Chicago, the alarm goes off and I have to remove my shoes even though I have TSA pre-check.  

I just go with the flow and don’t make a scene.  And that seems to work. 

 

 

[Fatshotbud]

Hey Island boy, great thread.
I'll have a stab at the question, hope someone knows the full answer.
My guess is the jetliner could glide/travel around 150 km or 93 miles.
This is based on the fact that almost all commercial planes have a glide ratio of 15:1 and 20:1. So say it's a 747 (Glide ration is around 15:1/17.1) , it would as such (Loosely) glide for about 20 minutes under favorable conditions. 

Ok (and I am sure Smitty has thought of this) - under said conditions; one would also need to consider direction of travel said doomed aircraft was going. If traveling Easterly the distance would be less than if traveling Westerly. This being due to the Earth's rotation. Additionally at what Latitude would need to be considered - closer to the Equator the rotation is quicker and will result in greater distance covered before reaching the goal of "Altitude Zero".


Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

[Islandboy]

3 hours ago, Fatshotbud said:

Ok (and I am sure Smitty has thought of this) - under said conditions; one would also need to consider direction of travel said doomed aircraft was going. If traveling Easterly the distance would be less than if traveling Westerly. This being due to the Earth's rotation. Additionally at what Latitude would need to be considered - closer to the Equator the rotation is quicker and will result in greater distance covered before reaching the goal of "Altitude Zero".


Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk
 

Now that’s what I’m talking about...attention to the finer details. I would say temperature (daytime vs night time) plays a role too, higher equals better lift and thus longer glide? 

[ImTripN2]

4 hours ago, Fatshotbud said:

Ok (and I am sure Smitty has thought of this) - under said conditions; one would also need to consider direction of travel said doomed aircraft was going. If traveling Easterly the distance would be less than if traveling Westerly. This being due to the Earth's rotation. Additionally at what Latitude would need to be considered - closer to the Equator the rotation is quicker and will result in greater distance covered before reaching the goal of "Altitude Zero".


Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk
 

The earth rotates at approx 1000 mph at the equator.

If you jumped up and hung in the air for 1 second, would you come down 1400 feet from where you started?