It was a pretty amazing piece of airmanship. I don't think the pilot got enough credit for that one. In fact he was demoted to first officer for 6 months after that.

Yes, it was the fuelers' fault for not converting fuel weight in pounds to kg. However, the Captain acting as pilot of command takes full and complete responsiblity for the flight and should have double checked it before takeoff.BB

I have yet to see any FSim aircraft that forward or side-slips correctly. About the only time this short coming with cross control behavior makes any difference to me is during cross wind landings. At least in the airliners. On a side note, during those situations the worst part of the sim is the lack of friction when the wheels touch down.

You should try the RealAir Duke, or anything from RealAir really

crews did not calculate the conversion of Pounds (US) to Kg of fuel proprerly, resulting in only fueling the plane 50% required for the flight!

mistake related to the fuel being loaded in imperial measurements, but the plane was metric - or vise-versa I don't remember which.

For those struggling with the conversion:1 kg = ~2.2 lbs.So it was the conversion from metric (kg) to imperial (lbs) that was the issue, if they only had half the fuel load they required on-board.e.g. they think they need 100 kg of fuel. They tell the fueling guys 100 lbs. 100 lbs = 45.45 kg.Best regards,Robin.

However, the Captain acting as pilot of command takes full and complete responsiblity for the flight and should have double checked it before takeoff.

It was not only this one fault. The captain made significant error for allowing to fly an aircraft that had faulty fuel measuring systems, in fact the manual forbade flying the 767 in this condition. There was a whole series of errors so no wonder that at the end there were disciplinary actions taken against pilots.

It was not only this one fault. The captain made significant error for allowing to fly an aircraft that had faulty fuel measuring systems, in fact the manual forbade flying the 767 in this condition. There was a whole series of errors so no wonder that at the end there were disciplinary actions taken against pilots.

Yes, but I'm simply pointing out the "Captain" takes complete and total responsiblity of the flight regardless of incompetencies of the F/O, ground crews, maintenance crews, etc. That's why they get paid the big bucks at the major airlines.I agree he should have never let the plane be pushed back from the gate.BB

For those struggling with the conversion:1 kg = ~2.2 lbs.So it was the conversion from metric (kg) to imperial (lbs) that was the issue, if they only had half the fuel load they required on-board.e.g. they think they need 100 kg of fuel. They tell the fueling guys 100 lbs. 100 lbs = 45.45 kg.Best regards,Robin.

Hi Robin,Yes, the investigation concluded that the aircraft had only been fueled 50% of the required fuel for required for the flight. That's why both engines ceased at the half way point in the route. Thus, for example the route needed 2000kg and they fueled up to 2000lb, they actually had approx. 1000kg on board. They investigation team found the exact notes from the fueler used for the flight the conversion was completely wrong and their were additional mistakes with the arithmatic. This was their conclusive proof of the original cause.Best,Billybob

I've got cockpit videos of the three of the real NG series from Just Planes\World Air Routes. It looks like they crab in a crosswind landing and straighten the nose and introduce very mild roll on the flare (don't want an engine strike but they are inboard) before contact.

Nobody has ever been able to recreate this in the airline simulators.

Doesn't mean anything, except that the simulators can't do it.If the Captain did it, then it is possible. Also think of the de-crab maneuver - you are slipping it big-time! Occurs during any crosswind landing. What the Captain did wasn't really that miraculous, only that HE had the presence of mind on THAT flight under THOSE circumstances to do it.

I have flown the A2A Cub. Unfortunately I have to say, to me it handles nothing like a real Cub. It just didn't "feel right". Especially slips.

How so?Best regards,Robin.

How so?Best regards,Robin.

It just doesn't. Lol. I'd have to drive to my buddy's house to take her up and refresh my memory of the A2A bird. But I'll try:To answer your question, the first thing that comes to mind is weak rudder authority during slips. The plane tends to yaw into the direction of the bank regardless of full rudder deflection in the opposite direction. This disallows any aggressive forward slips. That's quite the deal breaker when in a flap-less aircraft built for *short* strips w/ FAA height trees.Aileron authority/responsiveness is too mushy.One other nit pick I had was the ease of which the tail can be lifted off of the ground at slow speeds and high power. I'm holding full forward pressure on the stick at takeoff until about 20MPH before the tail leaves the ground in the real aircraft (which is a more powerful 85HP).Don't get me wrong, it's a work of art. I just don't find it very accurate *in my experience with a particular a/c*!