Re: Crash of SR111

Date:         10 Sep 98 03:04:19 
From:         "Michael Weiss" <ANTISPAMmweiss@microsoft.com>
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
References:   1 2
Next article
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.