"Ma'am it's an emergency,"

[straitman]

Air Force officer saves airliner with fuel leak.

 

[Mal]

Ouch. Makes you wonder why the pilot/s didn't notice themselves. Surely instrumentation would indicate a massive drop in fuel levels...

 

[harvyk]

I find it interesting that he had to say it twice and bring proof. Since UA232 pilots (and FA's) are meant to use all resources available to them, inc the pax. So when a pax comes up and says there is a problem pilots and FA's are meant to take it seriously.

 

[harvyk]

Ouch. Makes you wonder why the pilot/s didn't notice themselves. Surely instrumentation would indicate a massive drop in fuel levels...

It would, but who's to say they wouldn't have been over the ocean when the next instrument check is due to happen, and I don't think the FMC would have brought up any alerts until the fuel remaining went below what is required to reach the planes destination, which thanks to reserves could be quite some time.

That said, I doubt it would have gotten to the stage where they run out of fuel mid flight. (Then again look at Air Transat flight 236)

 

[straitman]

Ouch. Makes you wonder why the pilot/s didn't notice themselves. Surely instrumentation would indicate a massive drop in fuel levels...

I took this to mean they had noticed.

The aircraft's captain came to inspect the footage, which explained why the plane was losing 2700 kilograms of fuel each hour.

 

[Mal]

I took this to mean they had noticed.

Nah, I didn't... It just explains that 2700Kg of fuel was being lost each hour - not that the pilot/s actually noticed that they were losing that much fuel.

Once again, I hope it's investigated by the NTSB, and the report ensures that any appropriate lessons are learnt.

 

[mannej]

Maybe this is a good reason why windowless cabins should not be a way of the future?

 

[NYCguy]

What I find a little difficult to swallow is that the aircraft was at FL350 when this all occurred - surely if thy were only a few hours out of ORD, a 744 with sufficient fuel to fly to NRT would have been too heavy to be up that high that early in the flight?

The 747 is a powerful machine, but you can't make a whale defy the laws of physics.

 

[NM]

What I find a little difficult to swallow is that the aircraft was at FL350 when this all occurred - surely if thy were only a few hours out of ORD, a 744 with sufficient fuel to fly to NRT would have been too heavy to be up that high that early in the flight?

The 747 is a powerful machine, but you can't make a whale defy the laws of physics.

ORD-NRT is only 6300 miles or thereabouts. So assuming they were not carrying a belly full of heavy freight, a 744 would not be required to be at or near MTOW and unable to climb directly to FL350.

 

[Flying Fox]

Maybe this is a good reason why windowless cabins should not be a way of the future?

Could these not be replaced by strategically placed cameras focused on wings engines etc?

 

[opusman]

Could these not be replaced by strategically placed cameras focused on wings engines etc?

Or, I dunno, an alarm that goes off if you're losing 2700 L/hr

 

[dot]

Could these not be replaced by strategically placed cameras focused on wings engines etc?

Which is exactly why the A380 has a camera in the tail enabling the flight crew (and Pax) to see all four engines (and the wings) at any time....

 

[Cyclogenesis]

Is that available on the IFE in Y on the A380?

That is exactly what is needed as background vision when doing something passive like getting to sleep, listening to music etc...

even better if they dont turn it off on landing

 

[serfty]

Which is exactly why the A380 has a camera in the tail enabling the flight crew (and Pax) to see all four engines (and the wings) at any time....

There's more than one camera ...

Is that available on the IFE in Y on the A380?

Yes!

That is exactly what is needed as background vision when doing something passive like getting to sleep, listening to music etc...

Get pretty boring during cruise; OK for takeoff/landing/taxi/approach

even better if they dont turn it off on landing

They don't, although those in Exit rows, First Class and Business Class have to tuck theirs away for the takeoff/landing good bits.

 

[Flying Fox]

Which is exactly why the A380 has a camera in the tail enabling the flight crew (and Pax) to see all four engines (and the wings) at any time....

Are the cameras fix position as I think it would be helpful if they could be controlled via joy-stick with zoom capability in case there was need to focus in on a stream of jet fuel leaking out of a wing or similar.

Of course, controlled by the flight crew and not the passengers

Are the cameras equipped with night-vision?

 

[serfty]

...Are the cameras ...

The one available to you seat is fixed.


Here's a youtube video: YouTube - Qantas A380 SkyView Tail Mounted Camera

 

[Flashback]

The one available to you seat is fixed.


Here's a youtube video: YouTube - Qantas A380 SkyView Tail Mounted Camera

How was that taken if electronic devices are supposed to be turned off?

Anyway, in 80A/K is there a way to view? Do you need to look at the seats in front of you (79J for example)?

 

[NM]

How was that taken if electronic devices are supposed to be turned off?

Only transmitting devices are prohibited during cruise. Non-transmitting devices such as ipods or cameras are permitted to be used 20 mins or so into the flight.

 

[Flashback]

Only transmitting devices are prohibited during cruise. Non-transmitting devices such as ipods or cameras are permitted to be used 20 mins or so into the flight.

The video was of a plane landing into SYD. Looks like a lot of people breaking the rules to take these videos (as YouTube seems to have a lot of them for takeoff and landing).

 

[NM]

The video was of a plane landing into SYD. Looks like a lot of people breaking the rules to take these videos (as YouTube seems to have a lot of them for takeoff and landing).

Indeed operating a video camera during take-off or landing is against most (all??) airline's policies.