Thanks Bob: I was just repeating what had been posted buy the other bloke,
Eh!!
If my memory does not fail me 6000 statute miles is apx 8500 km, correct??
NOT SPECIFICALLY relating to the Pearson to Gimli feat, Eh!! Please read ALL
relevant post before flaming again. Thanks & have a very fine Canada Day
celebration and holiday with your friends and family. Personally I'd like to
be back in Peterborough this weekend along the Trent Canal.
Again maybe a Blue Label Labatts will be in order. Cheers Gov.
"BobMac" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:

I am familiar with that issue with the Air Canada Aircraft. However the
post
indicated "gliding from 30k altitude to a location 8500 km away". As I
responded it is outside the glide ratio for any commercial and/or
military
aircraft in current use. The implication of justified use of air speed
and
juducious fuel monitoring is how the experienced pilots accomplished
that
amazing feat. Yes, indeed it would be nice if that could be done but
even
Burt Rutan could not have his nice litle project bird glide from over
60k
altituce that kind of distance. Cheers: Maybe a Labats or Footers is in
order, Eh!!
"Leif Neland" wrote in message
. ..

my pilot was experienced in gliding as well

did you see the story on TV recently where a captain of a jumbo jet
glided it from 30,000 feet to a safe landing 6000 miles away after
running out of fuel then blew all but 2 tires on landing due to the
lack on reverse thrust.

Art wrote:

I doubt that any type of "JET Aircraft" has a glide ratio of 30,000
feet to 6000 miles. That is totally impossible!! 6 miles probably
and I would expect to drop a skin or too having to resort to using
the braking system rather than having available reverse thrust from
the engines. Aeronautically the glide ratio for any jet airplane will
not allow that distance of a "free fall" from only 30,000 feet. Maybe
you were thinking of the "Gossamer Albatross"?? Superior glide ratio
but would definately not make it to 30,000 feet altitude.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1983/1983-25.htm

The aircraft took off from Ottawa bound for Edmonton with less than half

the

fuel required to make the trip. A computer known as the "Fuel Quantity
Information System Processor" was not working properly so the ground
crew
made manual calculations for the amount of needed fuel. However, they
used
pounds/liter for the specific gravity factor instead of kilograms/liter.
This was first model of aircraft of Air Canada to use kilograms. The
aircraft ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet. With only standby instruments
(magnetic compass, artificial horizon, airspeed indicator and altimeter)

and

no slats or flaps, the plane landed safely on a 7,200 ft. runway at
Gimli,

a

former Air Force base converted into a racing drag strip. The plane
became
known as the "Gimli Glider." The TV movie Falling from the Sky: Flight
174
was made about this incident in 1995.

It ain't 8500 KM from Toronto Pearson to either runway at Gimli.

There was a vaguely similar event involving an Air Transat charter which
started leaking fuel over the Atlantic, and made a deadstick in IIRC,
the Azores. It involved a distance rather like 8500 km, but it wasn't
all a glide.

rm