When I flew NY to Singapore as a kid, , it was 2 planned night stops, plus one unplanned night stop.
one London, one Pakistan, one somewhere in India.
one London, one Pakistan, one somewhere in India.
New "Worlds Longest Airline Flight"
- Thread starter billt460
- Start date
- Status
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Didn’t they fly this route before with the Airbus 340-xxx?
Pretty long flight. I’ve been on 16 hour flights, that’s long enough.
Yes, it was an A340-500 … I used to fly the LAX to SIN sister fairly often and went 17 to 18 hours on those …
It only had 100 Business Class seats and about 75% sold … so boarding was the most peaceful ever …
Asked a young engineer how he liked it: said 3 meals, 3 movies, fell in love 3 times
(Singapore Air) …
Didn’t they fly this route before with the Airbus 340-xxx?
Pretty long flight. I’ve been on 16 hour flights, that’s long enough.
Yes, it was an A340-500 … I used to fly the LAX to SIN sister fairly often and went 17 to 18 hours on those …
It only had 100 Business Class seats and about 75% sold … so boarding was the most peaceful ever …
Asked a young engineer how he liked it: said 3 meals, 3 movies, fell in love 3 times
(Singapore Air) …
Last edited:
The aircraft is gravitationally locked to the planet, so this will make no difference.
This seems like a long flight and likely profitless for the carrier, but maybe enough people will opt for this non-stop option at a high enough fare to make it work. It didn't when they tried it before.
Me, I find the idea of nineteen hours on a plane horrifying however nice the inflight experience might be.
This seems like a long flight and likely profitless for the carrier, but maybe enough people will opt for this non-stop option at a high enough fare to make it work. It didn't when they tried it before.
Me, I find the idea of nineteen hours on a plane horrifying however nice the inflight experience might be.
Having flown the globe on Gulfstream's finest, ultra comfortable, long range corporate jets, I claim that anything over 7 hours is torture. Our G650ER can't do 9500 miles, only 8800, which is WAY TOO LONG.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Yes, it was an A340-500 … I used to fly the LAX to SIN sister fairly often and went 17 to 18 hours on those …
It only had 100 Business Class seats and about 75% sold … so boarding was the most peaceful ever …
Asked a young engineer how he liked it: said 3 meals, 3 movies, fell in love 3 times
(Singapore Air) …
At least a decade ago, Singapore Air had the reputation of the most beautiful flight attendants.
Yes, it was an A340-500 … I used to fly the LAX to SIN sister fairly often and went 17 to 18 hours on those …
It only had 100 Business Class seats and about 75% sold … so boarding was the most peaceful ever …
Asked a young engineer how he liked it: said 3 meals, 3 movies, fell in love 3 times
(Singapore Air) …
At least a decade ago, Singapore Air had the reputation of the most beautiful flight attendants.
Can the 777X set new record ?
So, here’s a question for you airline pilots:
Let’s say you had a problem while over the North Pole and had to get the aircraft down immediately. Where would you divert to? I’m assuming even at the most remote point, the flight plan would allow for a diversion to SOME airport within under an hour, correct?
What if all engines were lost?
Let’s say you had a problem while over the North Pole and had to get the aircraft down immediately. Where would you divert to? I’m assuming even at the most remote point, the flight plan would allow for a diversion to SOME airport within under an hour, correct?
What if all engines were lost?
I don't think you need to be an ATP to answer this one.
Other than fire or structural failure, what would cause a flight to have to land immediately?
In the case of either, and both have happened with aircraft on scheduled flights, even being near an airport may be of little help. I'll add that these are very rare events.
WRT engine failure, some twins can be allowed to operate up to 330 minutes from the nearest suitable airport, so in the event of the failure of one of the engines you'd be praying for the other's health for a number of hours. If both or all engines fail, then you'd need to be pretty close to a runway that can take the airplane for things to end in a landing rather than a controlled crash in which the crew lands the airplane wings level and maybe gear left up on some reasonable flat surface.
Since the dawn of the turbine age, engine failures, once common with recips, have become ever more rare. Were this not the case, aircraft would end up lost in the oceans on a regular basis and this simply doesn't happen.
All of the risks associated with potential failures have been well documented over the many decades of commercial airline operations and have been mitigated with improved airframes, aircraft and powerplant inspection and maintenance, engines, crew training and operating standards.
In short, you're safer in a twin airliner over either pole or the vast reaches of the Pacific than you were driving home from work today.
Other than fire or structural failure, what would cause a flight to have to land immediately?
In the case of either, and both have happened with aircraft on scheduled flights, even being near an airport may be of little help. I'll add that these are very rare events.
WRT engine failure, some twins can be allowed to operate up to 330 minutes from the nearest suitable airport, so in the event of the failure of one of the engines you'd be praying for the other's health for a number of hours. If both or all engines fail, then you'd need to be pretty close to a runway that can take the airplane for things to end in a landing rather than a controlled crash in which the crew lands the airplane wings level and maybe gear left up on some reasonable flat surface.
Since the dawn of the turbine age, engine failures, once common with recips, have become ever more rare. Were this not the case, aircraft would end up lost in the oceans on a regular basis and this simply doesn't happen.
All of the risks associated with potential failures have been well documented over the many decades of commercial airline operations and have been mitigated with improved airframes, aircraft and powerplant inspection and maintenance, engines, crew training and operating standards.
In short, you're safer in a twin airliner over either pole or the vast reaches of the Pacific than you were driving home from work today.
Kestas
Staff member
Any aircraft problems over the North Pole would face the same challenges as problems over the Atlantic or Pacific oceans.
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
So, here’s a question for you airline pilots:
Let’s say you had a problem while over the North Pole and had to get the aircraft down immediately. Where would you divert to? I’m assuming even at the most remote point, the flight plan would allow for a diversion to SOME airport within under an hour, correct?
What if all engines were lost?
All engines lost, you're crashing. Doesn't matter where you are in the world. Sully called it a water landing, but, with four airports all within 20 miles, he still couldn't make it.
Longest over water stretch (no divert options) anywhere in the world is California to Hawaii. Three hours to the nearest airport if you lose an engine. Perhaps more. Lots of places in the world where the nearest airport at which you can land is many hours away. Don't forget, the combination of weather, approach facilities, and aircraft capability, at that moment, might preclude landing at the very nearest airport.
North Pole isn't much different. Divert options, yeah. But none of them good. And from the pole itself, about three hours or more to any of them. Thule AB - 10,000 but with a wicked mag var that makes approaches hard. When your compass is off by degrees, it's hard to navigate...
Svalbard 8,000. Not much there. A few former Bear Bomber bases in Siberia, all with long runways, but zero maintenance or passenger accommodation. Check out The Pas Manitoba, Northernmost runway on your way North out of ORD...5,995 feet. 4,000 people in town. (I know, Churchill is up there too, as was Yellowknife, but they were always farther away...at least it has a 9,000' runway). From The Pas to the Pole is another 2,000 miles...
For nearly all the Arctic Circle diverts, if you can land, that is, if the weather allows it, you're potentially looking at -40 temps in the winter, with severe exposure (people die in minutes outside) and a real chance of the fuel freezing, and killing the APU. None of them are set up for taking care of hundreds of people. None of them can fix the airplane.
Our polar flights (ORD-HKG for example) carried exposure suits so that the pilots could survive outside the airplane to coordinate with ground personnel.
Polar overflight makes sense in the winter, if you're going West at all, to get out of the jet stream, but it includes the risk of fuel freezing in flight, too. Jet-A is rated to -40C. The warning in my airplane is for -37C. You increase fuel temp by going faster, or going lower. Fuel doesn't cool to ambient when in flight (but it will on the gourd in Siberia!!), it actually cools to the Total Air Temp. So, the challenge of managing fuel temp when flying over the Pole in the winter is quite real.
We mitigated this by sampling the fuel as it was uploaded into our 747s, it was analyzed and then, as we were over about Winnipeg we would send the actual freezing point of that fuel load to the airplane. It was often as good as -44 or even -47. You had to stay 3C above the fuel freeze point to keep everything running. Once the fuel hit the engine, the oil coolers warmed it up just fine. But in the wing tanks, it could develop paraffin crystals and stop pumping.
That's bad.
Same thing could happen on the ground in Siberia. Also, bad.
All long range airplanes are certified to have cargo fire suppression for at least three hours in flight. Doesn't help in a Swiss Air 111 type fire, but long range airplanes are designed to fly in those remote areas. For twin engine airplanes, ETOPS (Extended Twin Operating Procedures Standardization) was developed to ensure proper flight planning and aircraft systems redundancy so that if you lose an engine, or cabin pressure, in the worst place, you can make it to a reasonable divert field, with reasonable weather, in a specified amount of time. We (757/767 guys) generally fly 120 minute ETOPS in the Atlantic. But, if the weather is bad, we might be 180 minute ETOPS. Some airplanes, like the 777, are now certified for 330 minutes.
That's 5 1/2 hours on one engine. But in some places in the world, like the North Pole in winter, you will have to fly that long on one engine (lower and slower than normal) to get to a reasonable divert (which includes runway length, weight capacity, approach facilities, firefighting capability, and current weather in the definition of reasonable).
So, here’s a question for you airline pilots:
Let’s say you had a problem while over the North Pole and had to get the aircraft down immediately. Where would you divert to? I’m assuming even at the most remote point, the flight plan would allow for a diversion to SOME airport within under an hour, correct?
What if all engines were lost?
All engines lost, you're crashing. Doesn't matter where you are in the world. Sully called it a water landing, but, with four airports all within 20 miles, he still couldn't make it.
Longest over water stretch (no divert options) anywhere in the world is California to Hawaii. Three hours to the nearest airport if you lose an engine. Perhaps more. Lots of places in the world where the nearest airport at which you can land is many hours away. Don't forget, the combination of weather, approach facilities, and aircraft capability, at that moment, might preclude landing at the very nearest airport.
North Pole isn't much different. Divert options, yeah. But none of them good. And from the pole itself, about three hours or more to any of them. Thule AB - 10,000 but with a wicked mag var that makes approaches hard. When your compass is off by degrees, it's hard to navigate...
Svalbard 8,000. Not much there. A few former Bear Bomber bases in Siberia, all with long runways, but zero maintenance or passenger accommodation. Check out The Pas Manitoba, Northernmost runway on your way North out of ORD...5,995 feet. 4,000 people in town. (I know, Churchill is up there too, as was Yellowknife, but they were always farther away...at least it has a 9,000' runway). From The Pas to the Pole is another 2,000 miles...
For nearly all the Arctic Circle diverts, if you can land, that is, if the weather allows it, you're potentially looking at -40 temps in the winter, with severe exposure (people die in minutes outside) and a real chance of the fuel freezing, and killing the APU. None of them are set up for taking care of hundreds of people. None of them can fix the airplane.
Our polar flights (ORD-HKG for example) carried exposure suits so that the pilots could survive outside the airplane to coordinate with ground personnel.
Polar overflight makes sense in the winter, if you're going West at all, to get out of the jet stream, but it includes the risk of fuel freezing in flight, too. Jet-A is rated to -40C. The warning in my airplane is for -37C. You increase fuel temp by going faster, or going lower. Fuel doesn't cool to ambient when in flight (but it will on the gourd in Siberia!!), it actually cools to the Total Air Temp. So, the challenge of managing fuel temp when flying over the Pole in the winter is quite real.
We mitigated this by sampling the fuel as it was uploaded into our 747s, it was analyzed and then, as we were over about Winnipeg we would send the actual freezing point of that fuel load to the airplane. It was often as good as -44 or even -47. You had to stay 3C above the fuel freeze point to keep everything running. Once the fuel hit the engine, the oil coolers warmed it up just fine. But in the wing tanks, it could develop paraffin crystals and stop pumping.
That's bad.
Same thing could happen on the ground in Siberia. Also, bad.
All long range airplanes are certified to have cargo fire suppression for at least three hours in flight. Doesn't help in a Swiss Air 111 type fire, but long range airplanes are designed to fly in those remote areas. For twin engine airplanes, ETOPS (Extended Twin Operating Procedures Standardization) was developed to ensure proper flight planning and aircraft systems redundancy so that if you lose an engine, or cabin pressure, in the worst place, you can make it to a reasonable divert field, with reasonable weather, in a specified amount of time. We (757/767 guys) generally fly 120 minute ETOPS in the Atlantic. But, if the weather is bad, we might be 180 minute ETOPS. Some airplanes, like the 777, are now certified for 330 minutes.
That's 5 1/2 hours on one engine. But in some places in the world, like the North Pole in winter, you will have to fly that long on one engine (lower and slower than normal) to get to a reasonable divert (which includes runway length, weight capacity, approach facilities, firefighting capability, and current weather in the definition of reasonable).
Last edited:
Astro,
In regards to low fuel temperatures, can too high of fuel temperatures cause issues as well? I had heard it could in hot weather with some of these newer private jets like the Cessna Citation X, that have 51,000 ft. service ceilings. For example, if the aircraft was allowed to sit with full tanks on a hot ramp, (say 115F+ temp. in Phoenix), it could not climb to 51,000 ft. without first allowing the fuel to cool at a lower altitude. Otherwise the fuel could possibly boil in the tanks at that altitude and temperature.
Is this true? I would think if it was this would be of concern with fighters that have very high service ceilings and climb rates? There isn't much out there on this topic.
In regards to low fuel temperatures, can too high of fuel temperatures cause issues as well? I had heard it could in hot weather with some of these newer private jets like the Cessna Citation X, that have 51,000 ft. service ceilings. For example, if the aircraft was allowed to sit with full tanks on a hot ramp, (say 115F+ temp. in Phoenix), it could not climb to 51,000 ft. without first allowing the fuel to cool at a lower altitude. Otherwise the fuel could possibly boil in the tanks at that altitude and temperature.
Is this true? I would think if it was this would be of concern with fighters that have very high service ceilings and climb rates? There isn't much out there on this topic.
Bill - I'm not familiar with that airplane, so I can't really say why that limitation exists.
The F/A-18 had a maximum fuel temperature, because the heat exchanger for the AMAD (Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive = which drives the generator, hydraulic pumps and fuel pump) was cooled by fuel. The whole wing acted as a radiator in flight. In the F-14, fuel temperature wasn't even measured.
I don't think that we have a maximum fuel temperature in the Boeing. If we do, I've not come across it in our flight manual. We do have a caution on suction feed however. Normally, the fuel is provided to the engines from fuel boost pumps in the wing or center tanks. Fuel then goes to the engine driven pump to provide high pressure fuel into the fuel control.
IF you turn off the boost pumps, then you're suction-feeding the engines. This is not a normal procedure, but pilots have found themselves in inadvertently suction feeding the engines if they are in a rush to balance fuel (where you feed both engines from one tank via a cross feed manifold and draw down the fuel quantity in the tank with more fuel until the tank quantity is balanced) and turn off the boost pumps before opening a fuel cross feed valve to feed the engine from another tank using boosted fuel.
The higher the altitude or the warmer the fuel, the more likely you are to flame out an engine if you suction feed instead of providing boosted (pressurized) fuel flow to the engine-driven pump. This has happened to an airline* operating 767s out of Hawaii to their big hub in LAX. It took a descent to 5,000 to get the engines restarted.
So, perhaps the restriction that you name has to do with the pressure developed by the boost pumps in that airplane, or perhaps it's a suction feed from the fuel tanks, so the combination of low vapor pressure from the hot fuel and the high altitude creates a situation where the fuel system vapor locks due to fuel vapor pressure?
I honestly don't know about that airplane...
*They will remain nameless, but they're a good airline. The FAA issued an airworthiness directive in 2014 explicitly stating that 767 engines were not to be run as suction feed. We are very careful with the position of crossfeed switches and fuel pump switches. Both pilots have to concur before either one selects one of those switches as a result...
The F/A-18 had a maximum fuel temperature, because the heat exchanger for the AMAD (Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive = which drives the generator, hydraulic pumps and fuel pump) was cooled by fuel. The whole wing acted as a radiator in flight. In the F-14, fuel temperature wasn't even measured.
I don't think that we have a maximum fuel temperature in the Boeing. If we do, I've not come across it in our flight manual. We do have a caution on suction feed however. Normally, the fuel is provided to the engines from fuel boost pumps in the wing or center tanks. Fuel then goes to the engine driven pump to provide high pressure fuel into the fuel control.
IF you turn off the boost pumps, then you're suction-feeding the engines. This is not a normal procedure, but pilots have found themselves in inadvertently suction feeding the engines if they are in a rush to balance fuel (where you feed both engines from one tank via a cross feed manifold and draw down the fuel quantity in the tank with more fuel until the tank quantity is balanced) and turn off the boost pumps before opening a fuel cross feed valve to feed the engine from another tank using boosted fuel.
The higher the altitude or the warmer the fuel, the more likely you are to flame out an engine if you suction feed instead of providing boosted (pressurized) fuel flow to the engine-driven pump. This has happened to an airline* operating 767s out of Hawaii to their big hub in LAX. It took a descent to 5,000 to get the engines restarted.
So, perhaps the restriction that you name has to do with the pressure developed by the boost pumps in that airplane, or perhaps it's a suction feed from the fuel tanks, so the combination of low vapor pressure from the hot fuel and the high altitude creates a situation where the fuel system vapor locks due to fuel vapor pressure?
I honestly don't know about that airplane...
*They will remain nameless, but they're a good airline. The FAA issued an airworthiness directive in 2014 explicitly stating that 767 engines were not to be run as suction feed. We are very careful with the position of crossfeed switches and fuel pump switches. Both pilots have to concur before either one selects one of those switches as a result...
Thanks Astro for the detailed comeback.
Originally Posted By: billt460
https://scijinks.gov/coriolis/
But you are correct. Some people are not able to comprehend this concept.
Hey, that's a similar (two trains) argument to the one where I tried to explain that projectiles up to mach 1.5 have more wind drift than those just subsonic.
https://scijinks.gov/coriolis/
But you are correct. Some people are not able to comprehend this concept.
Hey, that's a similar (two trains) argument to the one where I tried to explain that projectiles up to mach 1.5 have more wind drift than those just subsonic.
All these long duration flights make me think Concorde and other supersonic passenger liners should be reintroduced.
Pain defined - Tampa-Bangkok multiple trips on Delta milk run (Tampa-Dallas-Portland-Tokyo-Seoul-Taipei-Bangkok) ....thirty three (33) hours. Corporate contract caused it. The only benefit was a free round trip domestic ticket every trip. Had to fight the company for that so they wouldn't require the free ticket be used on business! Was briefly "arrested" in Seoul one trip as I had forgotten, and security didn't spot it, the Swiss Army knife in my briefcase. The Delta crew really had to go to bat for me to even get back on the plane! God bless 'em. The locals thought they had a scalp. At that point you sit there and hope (pray) it's not your turn to be caught in the middle of some kind of a political or personal throwdown. Ah the glamor of travel....
- Status
