Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:19 From: "Michael Weiss" <ANTISPAMmweiss@microsoft.com> Organization: Microsoft Corp. References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >However, the pilots radioed "fuel on board is two-three-zero tons" according >to the transcript at http://www.abcnews.com/wire/World/AP99987130.html, >which seems far too high whether you take that as tons = 2,000 lbs or >tonnes = 1,000 kg. The cockpits of recent Boeings which I've been in >(all on United) have fuel measurements in hundreds of pounds -- maybe >with the decimal to make it thousands. Could they have meant tons = >100 lbs, i.e., 23,000 lbs of fuel? MSNBC indicated that they thought he may have inadvertently been referring to the GW, rather than fuel. If so, that would have placed them at either 460,000 lbs or 230,000kg. Either way, that still jibes with your estimate that the aircraft was probably around 20Klbs over MLW. And, yes, we're all in agreement that it's much easier to determine the right thing as a Monday morning quarterback. It's hard to imagine any pilot being willing to sacrifice all of those lives if there was an expectation that there was an option of saving the lives by sacrificing the airframe.