What on the XS650 is non-metric?

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

The plane had a double-engine failure near Winnipeg on the flight to Edmonton, Alberta.

No engine failure. They ran out of jet fuel. The engines were working just fine.

I was a flight mechanic on 767/757 for 5 years. Our indicators were metric, reading kilograms. I also fueled the aircraft. The fuel was delivered in gallons or liters. It was often ordered in pounds. Density was calculated in pounds. Uplift was reported to the crew in kilograms and reported to the company in gallons. It was always done with no time to do it.
 
Well, yes Marty - you are quite right of course. I should have said double-engine shut-down - I have edited the post.

What a stupid way to handle fuel - using two different measurement systems (SI and Imperial) plus two different ways of quantifying the fuel (pounds and gallons). They were just asking for a F/U weren't they?
 
Last edited:
- - - the entire affair was a close-run thing, but nobody got seriously hurt and it was a he!! of a piece of airmanship - caused by a Grade IX arithmetic error and a failed cockpit instrument.
Pete

Hi Pete,
the arithmetic was used because the plane's fuel gauges weren't working.
And as even I know, the only safe thing to say when that happens is "Fill her up"
 
Hi Pete,
the arithmetic was used because the plane's fuel gauges weren't working.
And as even I know, the only safe thing to say when that happens is "Fill her up"

Yes, but the added weight from the unnecessary fuel uplift would mess up the economics of flying pretty badly, I'm afraid. As the president of United (I think) Airlines famously once said: "If God had intended man to fly, He would have made it profitable."

I've tried it both ways and I have found that, basically, it is much better to not f@ck-up than it is to f@ck-up when dealing with technology.
 
Hi Pete, marty,
For sure taking off fully fuelled burns more fuel and hauling that extra fuel all the way to the destination adds to the flight costs
although with the aircraft's takeoff weight reduced by the fuel burned to get there I don't see an overweight landing.
Compared to the costs of gliding into Gimli, salvaging the aircraft and getting the passengers to Edmonton by other means
the extra fuel costs were just chump change.
 
Hi Pete, marty,
For sure taking off fully fuelled burns more fuel and hauling that extra fuel all the way to the destination adds to the flight costs
although with the aircraft's takeoff weight reduced by the fuel burned to get there I don't see an overweight landing.
Compared to the costs of gliding into Gimli, salvaging the aircraft and getting the passengers to Edmonton by other means
the extra fuel costs were just chump change.
Overweight landing happens when you have to return to base after something goes wrong. Many domestic aircraft don’t have dump capability. I probably went far enough off topic too long, so I’ll say good night.
 
Back
Top