http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider Hey Guys, I am not a pilot but a new PMDG user. I recently watched a MAYDAY episode regarding Air Canada Flight 143. IN the episode the pilots entered the wrong fuel weight into the FMC. The result aircraft ran out of fuel. I purchased the 737 NGX. Where the FMC enters the fuel weight for you. IS this real world? Can what happened to AC143 happen in real life? This accident was back in 1983 I am guessing there is more automation now happening in the Fuel tanks now. Are pilots still using paper advising them of what fuel was put into the aircraft from the ground crew. Than the pilots entering that weight into the FMC? Thus one miscalculation ie a decimal point here or there causing a flight to leave with out the required fuel. Just curious if anyone could let me know Thank You http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

The fuel indicators on that aircraft at the time of the incident were inoperational, I believe, and as a result the pilots were unable to check the fuel level, instead relying on the load sheet to determine how much fuel they had.

The AC 143 incident was the result of wrong calculations involving the imperial vs. metric calculations. I believe it was the only event that actually ran out of gas the way it did (excluding the Avianca incident in New York).

To simulate this, just load it with 50% of your needed fuel and don't look at the fuel gauge and you would most likely need to ignore the FMC warnings as I am sure most modern FMCs would notice your fuel will not get you to where you say you are going. The harder part to simulate would be that of the side slip. I doubt any airliners in FSX have accurate side slip physics; in fact, very few GA addons even have this modeled. It would be a fun experiment though. I believe even after that plane landed and they did 767 simulation runs with other pilots that most if not all could not successfully pull it off -- the Gimli pilot's knowledge as glider pilot no doubt helped him. It's definitely a great story with a lot of things lining up both for and against them that day.

To simulate this, just load it with 50% of your needed fuel and don't look at the fuel gauge and you would most likely need to ignore the FMC warnings as I am sure most modern FMCs would notice your fuel will not get you to where you say you are going. The harder part to simulate would be that of the side slip. I doubt any airliners in FSX have accurate side slip physics; in fact, very few GA addons even have this modeled. It would be a fun experiment though. I believe even after that plane landed and they did 767 simulation runs with other pilots that most if not all could not successfully pull it off -- the Gimli pilot's knowledge as glider pilot no doubt helped him. It's definitely a great story with a lot of things lining up both for and against them that day.

You also need to balance the fuel to where there is more fuel feeding the left engine than the right engine. That way both engines won't flame out at the same time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider Hey Guys, I am not a pilot but a new PMDG user. I recently watched a MAYDAY episode regarding Air Canada Flight 143. IN the episode the pilots entered the wrong fuel weight into the FMC. The result aircraft ran out of fuel. I purchased the 737 NGX. Where the FMC enters the fuel weight for you. IS this real world? Can what happened to AC143 happen in real life? This accident was back in 1983 I am guessing there is more automation now happening in the Fuel tanks now. Are pilots still using paper advising them of what fuel was put into the aircraft from the ground crew. Than the pilots entering that weight into the FMC? Thus one miscalculation ie a decimal point here or there causing a flight to leave with out the required fuel. Just curious if anyone could let me know Thank You http://en.wikipedia....ki/Gimli_Glider

Its nice episode. :) actually, they ran out of fuel because they loaded half of amount they needed. there were nothing wrong with FMC fuel entry by their loadsheet.

It was actually the fuel truck that screwed the pooch on this. He computed as kilograms instead of lbs (or vice versa, I forget which), in any case they loaded only 1/2 the needed fuel. With the fuel indicators non-op the crew didnt know they were short. One lucky plane load of people and one cool pilot!

Like most accidents, there's plenty enough blame to go around for everyone! I wonder how many other accidents had their flight crews both penalized (for the cause) and rewarded (for the recovery)?

As I understand this situation...... This was the first aircraft they had using metric. Due to u/s fuel indication the fuel had to be "dipped" to determine quatity. It was dipped twice before the leg where fuel exhaustion occured by ground people as was permitted by the carrier at the time - and apparently both made the same error in calculations however it was on the longer leg that fuel exhaustion occured. It appeared to be a training issue for the ground crews.

You can do this your self with almost no warnings. Set up your FMC exactly as normal and when everything is ready for push-back, use the FMC options to halve the amount of fuel actually loaded. Unless you not only look at the fuel guage, but compare what you see to how much fuel the Progess page says you should have, you will be in very a very unpleasent surprise.

That is correct but the pilots were not blameless and were in fact penalized, too. They had to enter the amount into the FMC and sign off on the amount and they too missed the Kg/LBS issue. Further, the plane should have never been flown without any fuel readouts working. I don't know all the facts but it looks like the captain was confused due to some misinformation and believed, being a new plane, that it was okay to fly the plane with the fuel gauges out. For obvious reasons, like this flight, flying without knowing how much fuel you have is a bad idea. Still, his incredible flying and good job as captain enabled the positive outcome. So one thumbs down and a couple thumbs up :)

Ya the fuel indication system was tagged as serviceable - hence dipping the tanks... Crummy calculations with a bunch of other factors (why U/S etc etc) and viola. Wiki article explains it real well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider#Fuel_quantity_indicator_system Good job by the pilots. Did many a YYC-YYZ trip on 604 as a young-ling. Never really knew it's significance till later.

That is correct but the pilots were not blameless and were in fact penalized, too. They had to enter the amount into the FMC and sign off on the amount and they too missed the Kg/LBS issue. Further, the plane should have never been flown without any fuel readouts working. I don't know all the facts but it looks like the captain was confused due to some misinformation and believed, being a new plane, that it was okay to fly the plane with the fuel gauges out. For obvious reasons, like this flight, flying without knowing how much fuel you have is a bad idea. Still, his incredible flying and good job as captain enabled the positive outcome. So one thumbs down and a couple thumbs up :)

Actually it was the ground crew who dipped the fuel, made the calculation and informed the crew as to how much fuel was onboard (actually what they believed was on board). This was approved company procedure. The dispatching with inop fuel guages was in accordance with the MEL and thus legal.It was indeed an incredable feat of airmanship.

I'll double-check if it was legal -- according to what I read it is not legal to fly without any working fuel gauges but it was a missunderstanding and some miscommunications that made him think it was. I'm not an expert though. (Also, I should read the NTSB report one of these days.) Also, the captain had to sign off on the fuel quantity and enter it in the computer. He was responsible for the amount of fuel and should have caught it in a perfect world. I believe these were the reasons he and the FO were suspended for a bit of time for their part in the accident. This doesn't take away any from his airmanship. No one's perfect and rare is the one who is without any blame. May be off topic but it reminds me of a smart person on a motorcycle forum in a discussion about a near miss someone had who was having a long conversation on why it wasn't his fault but the car driver's. In the end, he could blame the car driver all he wanted but if he collided he'd be dead; what good is it to be blameless and dead? ;) The lesson from this is: as captain 1. check the fuel 2. don't fly without working fuel gauges and 3. take gliding lessons :)

I'll double-check if it was legal -- according to what I read it is not legal to fly without any working fuel gauges but it was a missunderstanding and some miscommunications that made him think it was. I'm not an expert though. (Also, I should read the NTSB report one of these days.) Also, the captain had to sign off on the fuel quantity and enter it in the computer. He was responsible for the amount of fuel and should have caught it in a perfect world. I believe these were the reasons he and the FO were suspended for a bit of time for their part in the accident. This doesn't take away any from his airmanship. No one's perfect and rare is the one who is without any blame. May be off topic but it reminds me of a smart person on a motorcycle forum in a discussion about a near miss someone had who was having a long conversation on why it wasn't his fault but the car driver's. In the end, he could blame the car driver all he wanted but if he collided he'd be dead; what good is it to be blameless and dead? ;) The lesson from this is: as captain 1. check the fuel 2. don't fly without working fuel gauges and 3. take gliding lessons :)

The captain was demoted to F/O for six months and the first officer was suspended for two weeks. Actually I heard Air Canada was thinking of giving them the boot but didn't after Air Canada training was scrutinized by the TSB.