NWA jet makes emergency landing in Iran

Ok, explain this.

If I'm flying between A and B along the shortest route, and for some
reason I have to land at a very unfriendly C, presumably C is
somewhere close to the direct path between A and B.

Now if I have enough fuel in the first place to fly from A to B, and
if C is along the path from A to B, then why, after landing in C, do I
need more fuel to continue from C to B?

---------------------------------------

U.S. jet makes emergency landing in Iran
Monday, June 20, 2005; Posted: 5:41 a.m. EDT (09:41 GMT)

A Northwest plane passes an Iranian jet Sunday after landing in
Tehran.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- A Northwest Airlines DC-10 made an emergency
landing in Tehran on Sunday after an indicator detected a fire in the
cargo hold in what turned out to be a false alarm, a spokesman said.

No injuries were reported, and the plane later took off and landed
safely at its destination in the Netherlands, some eight hours late.

The plane, which was en route from Mumbai, India, to Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, had 255 passengers and crew, according to a spokesman for
the Iranian civil aviation authority.

The crew decided to land the plane in the Iranian capital when an
indicator detected a fire in the cargo hold, but that was later
determined to be a false alarm, said Jeff Smith, a spokesman for
Eagan, Minnesota-based Northwest Airlines.

U.S. carriers do not serve Iran because of American economic
sanctions. Washington broke ties with Iran shortly after the 1979
Islamic Revolution when militants seized the U.S. Embassy and held 52
hostages for 444 days.

The plane spent about seven hours in Iran on Sunday, while officials
determined there was no mechanical problem, then bought fuel.

"A lot of the delay in Tehran was just in negotiating and purchasing
fuel in a place that we normally do not divert to," Smith said.

Meanwhile, former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani will face Tehran
Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a runoff election for the Iranian
presidency, the Ministry of Interior said.

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Ok, explain this.

If I'm flying between A and B along the shortest route, and for some
reason I have to land at a very unfriendly C, presumably C is
somewhere close to the direct path between A and B.

Now if I have enough fuel in the first place to fly from A to B, and
if C is along the path from A to B, then why, after landing in C, do I
need more fuel to continue from C to B?


Because take-off (especially) and landing require more fuel than flying in a
straight line at high speed.

Miss L. Toe wrote:

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

Ok, explain this.

If I'm flying between A and B along the shortest route, and for some
reason I have to land at a very unfriendly C, presumably C is
somewhere close to the direct path between A and B.

Now if I have enough fuel in the first place to fly from A to B, and
if C is along the path from A to B, then why, after landing in C, do I
need more fuel to continue from C to B?



Because take-off (especially) and landing require more fuel than flying in a
straight line at high speed.




In addition C was the best available alternate. That doesn't mean that
it was on a direct path.

Why does a plane need more fuel if it flies from Mumbai India
to Amsterdam but has to make a stop in Tehran?

Because take-off (especially) and landing require more fuel
than flying in a straight line at high speed.

So the reserve capacity of such a flight is less than what is needed
for a single additional take-off and landing cycle? Give me a break.

In addition C was the best available alternate. That doesn't
mean that it was on a direct path.

Distance from Mumbai to Amsterdam: 6900 km.
Distance from Mumbai to Tehran: 2800 km.
Distance from Tehran to Amsterdam: 4100 km.

Distance from Mumbai to Amsterdam via Tehran: 2800+4100=6900 km.

Hmmm. Seems that Tehran was bloody well in the direct path from
Mumbai to Amsterdam. I don't have a globe in front of me to confirm
this. I base this on the following:

Mumbai, India
Longitude 73° 00' West
Latitude 19° 00' North

Amsterdam
Longitude 5° 00' West
Latitude 53° 00' North

Tehran
Longitude 51° 30' West
Latitude 35° 45' North

and this on-line calculator:

http://www.geocities.com/generalmari...distances.html

Still doesn't explain why they needed to buy fuel in Tehran.
Especially since it cost them 7 hours of delay to the flight. I'm
sure that cost the airline more than the fuel.

Fly Guy wrote:
Because take-off (especially) and landing require more fuel
than flying in a straight line at high speed.
So the reserve capacity of such a flight is less than what is needed
for a single additional take-off and landing cycle?

most likely, yes. Going from around sea level (or even 6000' MSL)
up to cruise at 39000 feet probably takes about 1/2 of your reserves.
Well then you need replenish your reserves. Well you do that
by getting fuel.

Useless things as a pilot are altitude above you, runway behind
you and fuel on the ground.

Give me a break.

since you ask. ;-)

Gerald

"G. Sylvester" wrote in message
m...
Fly Guy wrote:
Because take-off (especially) and landing require more fuel
than flying in a straight line at high speed.
So the reserve capacity of such a flight is less than what is needed
for a single additional take-off and landing cycle?

most likely, yes. Going from around sea level (or even 6000' MSL)
up to cruise at 39000 feet probably takes about 1/2 of your reserves.
Well then you need replenish your reserves. Well you do that
by getting fuel.

And wouldn;t it be sensible (if not mandatory) to replinsh that reserve
where possible once used, you never know where/when the next emergency
landing will be.