Liverpool Lou Posted February 11 Posted February 11 24 minutes ago, Autonuaq said: the interesting question is more why the Thai allow possible unsafe airplanes to enter the Thai airspace. So ban all Boeings from Thai airspace.
Liverpool Lou Posted February 11 Posted February 11 25 minutes ago, Autonuaq said: Russian airplanes are now known as that they have nor access to genuine certified parts and the needed maintenance. Yes, they do have access to parts, they can get parts from many places.
Liverpool Lou Posted February 11 Posted February 11 27 minutes ago, Autonuaq said: the interesting question is more why the Thai allow possible unsafe airplanes to enter the Thai airspace. Ridiculous question. Every single aircraft everywhere is possibly unsafe. Until they are unsafe, they are safe. 1
Liverpool Lou Posted February 11 Posted February 11 30 minutes ago, Autonuaq said: the interesting question is more why the Thai allow possible unsafe airplanes to enter the Thai airspace. Why would Thailand ban aircraft, for no reason, from one of its major trading partners? 1
Liverpool Lou Posted February 11 Posted February 11 4 hours ago, Samh said: 10 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Even more stupid to accuse someone of being pretty stupid for asking the question when the plane can dump fuel. https://www.airlinereporter.com/2009/12/pictures-of-saudi-arabian-boeing-777-fuel-dump/#google_vignette Saudi 777 dumping fuel. What are you telling me for? Tell the member to whom I responded following his daft claim that it was "pretty stupid to think Boeing 777-300 can dump fuel".
Health On A Budget Posted February 11 Posted February 11 The Boeing 777-300ER has the following weight specifications: Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW): 775,000 lbs (351,534 kg) Maximum Landing Weight (MLW): 554,000 lbs (251,290 kg) Comparison: The MTOW is significantly higher than the MLW because an aircraft takes off with a full fuel load and payload but needs to be lighter for landing due to structural limitations. The difference between MTOW and MLW is 221,000 lbs (100,244 kg), which means that if a 777-300ER needs to return to the airport shortly after takeoff, it may have to dump or burn fuel to reduce weight before landing safely. It is therefore pretty obvious why the aiircraft had to dump fuel. To reduce from MTOW to MLW, a Boeing 777-300ER would need to dump 221,000 lbs of fuel, which would take approximately 39 minutes at the standard fuel dump rate. That figure is to reach MLW, and assumes that the aircraft's front landing assembly could withstand the weight involved. If there was any doubt about that fact, it would explain why flying a holding pattern for longer would be a safer option. When lives are at risk, it is neccessary to apply precautionary principles.
ChaiyaTH Posted February 11 Posted February 11 10 hours ago, digger70 said: Yea right That's Absolutely stupid . An emergency landing Is an an emergency landing Only IF/When there is Something Wrong Otherwise it Isn't an Emergency. Yup, that's why they took 3 hours to circle calmly above the andaman sea...
Health On A Budget Posted February 11 Posted February 11 9 minutes ago, Health On A Budget said: The Boeing 777-300ER has the following weight specifications: Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW): 775,000 lbs (351,534 kg) Maximum Landing Weight (MLW): 554,000 lbs (251,290 kg) Comparison: The MTOW is significantly higher than the MLW because an aircraft takes off with a full fuel load and payload but needs to be lighter for landing due to structural limitations. The difference between MTOW and MLW is 221,000 lbs (100,244 kg), which means that if a 777-300ER needs to return to the airport shortly after takeoff, it may have to dump or burn fuel to reduce weight before landing safely. It is therefore pretty obvious why the aircraft had to dump fuel or burn it instead. To reduce from MTOW to MLW, a Boeing 777-300ER would need to dump 221,000 lbs of fuel, which would take approximately 39 minutes at the standard fuel dump rate. That figure is to reach MLW, and assumes that the aircraft's front landing assembly could withstand the weight involved. If there was any doubt about that fact, it would explain why flying a holding pattern for longer would be a safer option. When lives are at risk, it is neccessary to apply precautionary principles. Amendment included above is to show the option to dump or burn excess fuel.
GammaGlobulin Posted February 11 Posted February 11 Next time, the Russians should just fly Tupolev-114 aircraft... 1
Popular Post pete43 Posted February 11 Popular Post Posted February 11 2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: So ban all Boeings from Thai airspace. No! Ban all Aeroflot! 3
Liverpool Lou Posted February 12 Posted February 12 11 hours ago, pete43 said: No! Ban all Aeroflot! Why? Do you have any rational reason? 1
Samh Posted February 12 Posted February 12 13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: What are you telling me for? Tell the member to whom I responded following his daft claim that it was "pretty stupid to think Boeing 777-300 can dump fuel". Just backing up what you said. I couldn't find the original dumb post to reply to that one. 1
bamnutsak Posted February 12 Posted February 12 It looks like this aircraft (RA-73518) departed BKK/SBIA early this morning and has landed at KHV (Khabarovskiy Aeroport), operated at flight SU7081. That's a long way from Moscow, but Aeroflot does operate flights KHV-BKK. So this airframe is scheduled to return to BKK tomorrow as SU654 due at 11:15. Seems like it will take a while to get those ~ 290 pax back to Moscow, maybe accommodated on some ME cariers.
gravity101 Posted Saturday at 09:58 AM Posted Saturday at 09:58 AM On 2/11/2025 at 5:05 AM, Liverpool Lou said: What makes you think that (a) any airline would not order that facility on that model (if it is actually an option on that model and not standard equipment) and (b) it is "obvious" that Aeroflot didn't order it? It's standard equipment on all t7s. Has to be. Only certain short range aircraft can get away with it being optional. MTOW and all that. The guys talking rubbish.
black tabby12345 Posted Saturday at 11:19 AM Posted Saturday at 11:19 AM Good to know it didn’t crush in population center of the kingdom Otherwise, it is just like Russia unwittingly bombing another country, half the world away from warzone.
black tabby12345 Posted Saturday at 11:31 AM Posted Saturday at 11:31 AM On 2/11/2025 at 8:16 AM, BerndD said: Russian Roulette with a pistol. Better use this Instead. With this, death rate is 1/6. But with the above, it is 6/6(100%)... 1
black tabby12345 Posted Saturday at 11:34 AM Posted Saturday at 11:34 AM On 2/11/2025 at 4:38 AM, hotchilli said: Very doubtful With or Without sanction, anything in Russia presumed lousy...
black tabby12345 Posted Saturday at 11:36 AM Posted Saturday at 11:36 AM On 2/11/2025 at 5:11 AM, NatureFilm said: Flying with russian airlines is "Russian Roulett" Literary... 1
black tabby12345 Posted Saturday at 11:39 AM Posted Saturday at 11:39 AM On 2/11/2025 at 5:06 AM, D M G said: Forgot the Vodka Unless their plane is Multi-Fuel, like Brazilian cars...
TheFishman1 Posted Sunday at 04:50 AM Posted Sunday at 04:50 AM You have to be above 5000 feet to dump fuel this way by the time you dump it at that altitude it doesn’t hit the ground and evaporates
MangoKorat Posted Sunday at 08:22 AM Posted Sunday at 08:22 AM On 2/10/2025 at 9:04 PM, Bannoi said: I wonder if sanctions leading to poor maintenance had anything to do with it. They've had a poor maintenance record for many years. I believe they were banned from the UK at one point. There were reports a few years back that aircrew were told to stop reporting faults and just let the captain know. 1
Gobbler Posted Sunday at 12:32 PM Posted Sunday at 12:32 PM On 2/11/2025 at 6:33 AM, Srikcir said: Airbus and Boeing Suspend Technical Support For Russian airlines, 2022-03-03 https://www.airnavradar.com/blog/airbus-and-boeing-suspend-technical-support-for-russian-airlines Thailand allowing this aircraft to enter Thailand airspace is a threat to its national security. But think of the value of Russian tourists! Money, money, money. Disgusting attitude. Trump will fix it. 1 2
cardinalblue Posted Sunday at 12:51 PM Posted Sunday at 12:51 PM Wrong answer - if a plane lands or take off from an airport, that airport must have sufficient emergency response to handle that plane… to say Bkk over Phuket makes one question emergency response capabilities in Phuket
Gobbler Posted Sunday at 05:15 PM Posted Sunday at 05:15 PM 4 hours ago, cardinalblue said: Wrong answer - if a plane lands or take off from an airport, that airport must have sufficient emergency response to handle that plane… to say Bkk over Phuket makes one question emergency response capabilities in Phuket Not true. The pilot wanted a bigger airport with bigger teams and a longer runway. Nothing else going on. 1
josephbloggs Posted Sunday at 06:07 PM Posted Sunday at 06:07 PM 49 minutes ago, Gobbler said: Not true. The pilot wanted a bigger airport with bigger teams and a longer runway. Nothing else going on. Yep, why wouldn't you choose the much bigger and better equipped airport? And as someone else pointed out, if the landing gear fails on landing it would close the runaway. As Phuket only has one it would be catastrophic, whereas Suvarnabhumi has three so could easily continue operations. It all makes perfect sense, not sure why anyone thinks there is reason to question it.
Airwolf Posted yesterday at 07:02 AM Posted yesterday at 07:02 AM On 2/11/2025 at 9:04 PM, Liverpool Lou said: Yes, they do have access to parts, they can get parts from many places. Not certified, so no good.
Liverpool Lou Posted yesterday at 07:30 AM Posted yesterday at 07:30 AM 27 minutes ago, Airwolf said: On 2/11/2025 at 9:04 PM, Liverpool Lou said: Yes, they do have access to parts, they can get parts from many places. Not certified, so no good. Says who?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now