Plane makes safe emergency landing at Ben Gurion Airport [Summary of Incident]

Jerusalem Post ^ | Jul. 24, 2003 | JOEL LEYDEN

[yonif]

An El Al plane landed safely at Ben Gurion International Airport after reporting a problem with it's hydraulic system.

The craft was bound for New York and returned just over an hour after it had left Israel.

The airport was put on the highest level of alert - code red - with 20 ambulances, fire and rescue crews placed on standby.

A spokesman for El Al said that the passengers and crew were not in any danger.

The 747 circled over the sea for about an hour to dump its 13 tons of fuel so that it could come in for a safe landing. The plane was carrying 520 passengers on board.

Israel's national airline says an increased fear of flying brought about by the terror attacks in America has led to a surge in demand for its flights.

According to reports, the carrier, famed for its rigorous levels of security, has seen a rise in the number of passengers wanting to fly El Al to the United States.

El Al was recently privatized in order to turn the debt-ridden airline into a competitive company.

[yonif]

Ping.

[Wright is right!]

I had no idea that El-Al had been privatized. When did that happen? And given the "debt-ridden" carrier's extremely high security costs, just how is it planning on making money?

Michael

[Naspino]

Why didn't they just raise taxes to pay off the debt? This would have been how liberals think and most Israelis are liberal.

[yonif]

1. Privatization happened I believe 1 or 2 months ago

2. There is a right-wing finance minister in office now (Netanyahu) who has already lowered taxes and cut social benefits

3. El Al is on the way to making money again, due to the fact outside investors are pouring money into the airline

4. No matter how in debt it is, its high security standards will remain in place. One should also note, that the Government of Israel pays for some of the security as the whole Ben Gurion Airport is under its juristication and that airport has even stricker security before you even board a plane.

[Wright is right!]

"4. No matter how in debt it is, its high security standards will remain in place. One should also note, that the Government of Israel pays for some of the security as the whole Ben Gurion Airport is under its juristication and that airport has even stricker security before you even board a plane."

Yes, I'm well aware of the level of security in place at Ben Gurion. It's the type of security one puts in place if one actually wants an effective system, as opposed to the one we have here.

Michael

[The South Texan]

I would fly EL AL in second over an American carrier to the Middle East. You tell the average Joe that around here and they give you a blank look until you tell them why.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Since WHEN does a 747 carry 520 passengers? That means there must be a crew of ~20, for a total of 540 people on board

No way.

[bandleader]

Thirteen tons of fuel!Wait until The Enviro-Wackos hear about this!!

[bandleader]

No empty seats is a good start!

[msdrby]

From http://home.golden.net/~cclemmer/Boeing742.htm


Boeing 747-200

Manufacturer: Boeing (United States)

First Flown: 1971

Length: 231.11 ft (70.7m)

Wingspan: 195.4 ft (59.6 m)

Cruising Speed: 917 km (570 mi)/hr

Range: 9 850 km (6 156 mi)

Passenger Capacity: 425

Versions: 747-100, 747-200 (improved range and engines), 747-200C (passenger/cargo), 747-200F (freighter, capable of transporting 120 199 kg or 264 438 lb cargo), 747SR (550 passengers, shorter range), 747SP (shorter fuselage, range extended to 15 400 km or 9 625 mi), 747-300 (upper fuselage extended in order to accommodate 37 extra passengers), 747-400 (increased range and wingspan, fly-by-wire, 6 foot winglets extending upward from the end of the wings), 747-400D (domestic, no winglets, increased passenger capacity), 747-400F (freighter).

[msdrby]

It is standard practice to dump excess fuel into the ocean/sea before attempting an emergency landing.

[yonif]

Yes

[msdrby]

I think I should also add that you may find that 13 tons of fuel is not excessive for a trans-atlantic flight.

[hattend]

It is standard practice to dump excess fuel into the ocean/sea before attempting an emergency landing.

If you want to keep the landing gear on the plane, yes. The gear can only support a landing at so much weight.

It can take the full weight just sitting on the ground and takeoff but the design engineers assume you will burn fuel off before the inevitable landing.

If, for some reason, you have to return to the original airport (or land at a close alternate) and you haven't burned off the required fuel weight, you have to dump that portion of the fuel to get the weight down for landing.

They could make stronger landing gear but it only adds weight to the airframe.

[hattend]

Disregard, I read "Is It", not "It Is"...you weren't asking a question. Oops.

[msdrby]

No problem. You know, I thought about it after I posted and wondered if anyone would misread that as "is it" instead of "it is." I almost did myself and had to proof twice before posting!