I would not say by any means that they put "B" crews on cargo airplanes. I am sure the pilots of any cargo plane take just as much professionalism with them to work as anyone else. If a pilot makes a bad decision to continue an approach, the type of operation does not necessarily have something to do with it. There are also are many other factors going through the flight crew's mind than we can analyze with a picture. Although, it does seem like a go-around may have been in order.

Cargo planes are also not necessarily heavier than passenger planes. Most planes have the same max certified takeoff weight regardless of whether they are a freighter or a passenger config. Take a airplane accross the Pacific, fill it up with people and fill it up with gas and it will weigh just as much as a full cargo plane.

__________________
Ali Al-Chalabi

2001 CLK55
1999 Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins Diesel
2002 Harley-Davidson Fatboy
Merlin Extralight w/ Campy Record

Correct on takeoff.

However, most cargo planes takeoff with far less fuel than a passenger plane going the same distance. As an example, a 747 freighter travelling from NY to Japan will make a fuel stop in Anchorage. The fuel load departing NY is about 200,000 lb. and the freight can be almost 250,000 lb. It lands with 250,000 lb. of freight and minimal fuel.

The passenger aircraft departs NY with 350,000 lb. of fuel and about 80,000 lb. of passengers and bags. It lands with the the same 80,000 lb. of passengers and bags and minimal fuel.

Sort of.

The weight of an aircraft is dependent on quite a few things.
Cargo planes are not necessarily heavier that an equivilent passenger aircraft. The aircraft has a maxiimum certified takeoff and landing weight that is determined by the manufacture. Not all cargo aircraft are made that way. some are used ex-passenger aircraft and some are freighters right off the assembly line. But the manufacture determines the weights. IF the aircraft is heavier than the passenger aircraft that just landed. They will fly at a faster speed. My aircraft speed is based on the weight on approach. Heavy, we fly a faster "ref" speed. Gusty winds. We add some speed, based on our companies formulas.
An interesting note. UPS and FEDEX usually bulk out before they gross out. They run out of room before the weight of the cargo causes them to hit their max weight.
So why do the cargo planes seem to be having the difficulty here.
An airlines cargo operation my have more junior crews on it only due to the more night flying on the freight operation. That will hold true her in the US. But international operations usually require night operations on every trip. Our South America trips are a double all nighter. Night flight going down and coming home. Out of our international lines on the 767, The South American runs go the most junior for line holders. Europe is the most senior and Hawaii is next.
Another factor, and I'm not saying cargo crews are less experienced ( total flight time). It could be that the photographer was up at the times that the cargo planes were arriving. Just a coincident. If 8 am in Hong Kong is when the cargo planes arrive and the winds were blowing like crazy. They were the ones shooting the approaches. He clicked the camera and the conclusion is that the cargo planes are the problem.
I find the cargo operators do a fine job. If they didn't you would be hearing about it in the newspapers all the time due to crashes.
Actually FEDEX and UPS do about 50% at night and 50% during the day, flying wise.
Another factor, The freight dogs may be flying all the time at night, arriving at sunrise, and doing this all the time produces fatigue. This is a factor in a night freight operation. Once you get your circadian clock all screwed up, it does affect judgement.
The majority of accidents in aviation now adays are a change of events. Not just one item ( usually). I feel that these landings were just because it was really windy, A bad approach (the IGS landing system at Hong Kong), International night/day operations and possibly a cultural "saving face" or "not wanting to fail" philosophy that prevented the crew from initiating a go arround. This has been found to be a factor in Korean Airlines operation, Saudia, and some other airline operations. Pilots tend to "mission oriented" which means we have a job to do and were going to do it no matter what. well that no matter what may meana bad landing etc. The aviation community is working very hard to ingrain a phlosophy of "not finishing a mission" is OK or a divert/ go around IS part of the mission. The airlines actually test for the "mission oriented" makeup. It is part of what makes up a pilot, this philosophy is what allows us to do the job safetly. But all personallity makups have ther downside. this "mission oriented" philosophy is one of them.

Part 2.

For Brian, 2 747's going from NYC to Hong Kong will burn "about" the same fuel ( it is weight dependant). They will probably have the same fuel for alternates, They will probably have the same amount of cargo/passenger weight. The cargo plane will be about the same as the passenger plane. Passenger planes have a lot of cargo in the belly when they fly. And on interantional flights, airlines really try to max out the aircraft ( in $$$) . The cargo plane is doing the same thing. But as I posted above the cargo plane usually bulks out first.

Also the "fuel stop in Ancorage actually cost the airline more than the nonstop. In the MD80 if I stop for fuel instead of going non stop it cost American about $10,000. So the airlines wants to fly non stop as much as possible. It causes the average cost per seat mile to drop the longer you stay in the air. Our highest burn rate is are in the lower atmosphere. In addition to all the ground support expense.
Now if the cargo freight company is picking up $150,000 worth of revenue, go for it. If it is just for fuel, it really cost them. Its a balance that each airline has to figure.

Arrival fuels will probably be the same for both planes. My minimum for the MD80 is 6000 lbs of fuel. If I need an alternate I will land at say DFW with more. But I will land at the alternate with 6000Lbs. My personal minumum. So the flight to DFW, with an alternate ( which requires, say 4000Lbs) requires 10,000 at DFW, If I dont' divert. If were are going to hold I should have more fuel or I will have to divert as soon as I get holding instructions.) This is all calculated on the flight plan based on the weather and aircraft weight at takeoff. No passengers and I burn less fuel enroute, A full load and I burn more.
Aircraft are designed with a seesaw type affect with fuel and weight. I can hold full fuel but then not full passengers, and visa versa. Then a maximum landing weight comes into play.
Examples. My normal empty operating weight is about 87,000# my maxumum fuel load is 39,000# my maximum takeoff weight is 150,000#. So we get 126,000# with the plane and max fuel that leaves about 22,000 in cargo and passengers. ( another little thing is called maximum zero fuel weight. This is the structural limit for cargo/pax without fuel. The fuel in the wings stabalizes the aircraft and helps the structural design limits) Now lets say on this flight I have 25,000 of cargo/pax. That means I can only carry 36,000 Lbs of fuel. A flight form DFW to Seattle might have a problem becasue of headwinds. From SEA to DFW no, the're tail winds. This is where you start to get passenger restricted flights. OR another thing is maximum landing weight. I cannot touchdown above 130,000# If I'm going to burn 7000# in a flight, DFW to TUL I can only weight 137,000# based on my landing weight, not the 150,000# structural weight.
I see I have rambled. I'll stop.

Dave

__________________
1970 220D, owned 1980-1990
1980 240D, owned 1990-1992
1982 300TD, owned 1992-1993
1986 300SDL, owned 1993-2004
1999 E300, owned 1999-2003
1982 300TD, 213,880mi, owned since Nov 18, 1991- Aug 4, 2010 SOLD
1988 560SL, 100,000mi, owned since 1995
1965 Mustang Fastback Mileage Unknown(My sons)
1983 240D, 176,000mi (My daughers) owned since 2004
2007 Honda Accord EX-L I4 auto, the new daily driver
1985 300D 264,000mi Son's new daily driver.(sold)
2008 Hyundai Tiberon. Daughters new car

Dave, if the limiting factor on the cargo plane is volume, and weight is not in the discussion, then I agree with you.

However, if you look at a 747-400 flying from NY to Hong Kong, you've got 840,000 lb. to play with. The airplane weight is about 400,000 lb. and the fuel weight is about 360,000 lb. This leaves only 80,000 lb. for cargo or passengers. If this amount of weight fills the volume, then fine, let it go.

But, if the airplane takes on 200,000 lb. of fuel out of NY and lands in Anchorage for a refuel, the airplane could take 240,000 lb. of cargo. That's a significant difference to the previous scenario. If the airplane is not volume limited, the revenue generated by this amount of additional freight is more than offset by the additional cost of the fuel stop.

Yes, but
Is there 240,000# of cargo??
Is the airline ALLOWED to stop at Ancorage??
Our new ORD-China service does not allow any stops as per the treaty allowing the service. So we better have the correct aircraft for the service, we do, a 777.

So many factors come into play. And again stopping for fuel burns up alot of gas doing it. It may be cost prohibitive based on the cargo upload and the fuel cost.

Or the route authorized requiers a stop. Those flights also exist.

Dave

__________________
1970 220D, owned 1980-1990
1980 240D, owned 1990-1992
1982 300TD, owned 1992-1993
1986 300SDL, owned 1993-2004
1999 E300, owned 1999-2003
1982 300TD, 213,880mi, owned since Nov 18, 1991- Aug 4, 2010 SOLD
1988 560SL, 100,000mi, owned since 1995
1965 Mustang Fastback Mileage Unknown(My sons)
1983 240D, 176,000mi (My daughers) owned since 2004
2007 Honda Accord EX-L I4 auto, the new daily driver
1985 300D 264,000mi Son's new daily driver.(sold)
2008 Hyundai Tiberon. Daughters new car

AFAIK, the treaties regarding nonstop flights are related to passenger service.

For freighters, there is no such restriction.

NWA is a good example. The 747F always stops in Anchorage, both ways.
Can't say if they fly it with 240,000 all the time, but, I'd bet it is way more than 80,000.

Actually ALL operations to and from foreign countries is regulated by treaties. Some are unrestricted and some are very restricted.
Our treaties between the US and Japan initially only allowed Northwest and Pan Am ( bought by United) and the 2 freight carriers FEXEX and UPS. Additions have been added over the years and the US is trying to allow open skies treaties between the countries. China just allowed additional flights from the US to mainland China Continental and American received them.

So the cargo operators are governed based on the treaty the US has with the country.

Dave

__________________
1970 220D, owned 1980-1990
1980 240D, owned 1990-1992
1982 300TD, owned 1992-1993
1986 300SDL, owned 1993-2004
1999 E300, owned 1999-2003
1982 300TD, 213,880mi, owned since Nov 18, 1991- Aug 4, 2010 SOLD
1988 560SL, 100,000mi, owned since 1995
1965 Mustang Fastback Mileage Unknown(My sons)
1983 240D, 176,000mi (My daughers) owned since 2004
2007 Honda Accord EX-L I4 auto, the new daily driver
1985 300D 264,000mi Son's new daily driver.(sold)
2008 Hyundai Tiberon. Daughters new car

I recently saw the movie The Aviator about Howard Hughes. They covered the story about how Pan Am lobbied congress to pass law to make Pan Am the only overseas carrier in the US.

Howard Hughes: [talking of Juan Trippe]

Would such a treaty regarding cargo operators be specific in the requirement of nonstop freight flights? Or would the freight operator be permitted to make a fuel stop of his choice?

My original statement was that the treaty did not regulate the freight carrier to the point of restricting a fuel stop.

not much study needed for them thar airthings. it's simple, if you want to make the houses bigger, you push forward. makem smaller pull back.

Totaling Approx. 30 Yrs In The Airplane Biz. Mechanic Faa I.a. Pilot , My Travels On Airbus Are Always A Adventure In "i Wonder If"
Syndrome. Other Than The Tv Dropping From The Overhead Theres Is Not One Damn Thing That Makes Me Comfy In One Of Those Frenchie Made Traps. Any Aircraft, When Sitting Next To The Window You Can Feel The Floor Flex When A Kid Walks By Is Not A Comfortable Feeling To Me.. Aircraft Are Designed To Expand And Contract Depending On Conditions, But This One Feels Like The French Had A Bit To Much Vino At Lunch. There Helicopters Suck To.

Yah, I stay away from AirBus's too. I've experienced the same thing with the floor flexing. Spooky. And then recalling that video of the Airbus demonstartion where the aircraft decided it wasn't ready to gain altitude, even though the pilot and co-pilot were both gproviding, I'm sure, excessive input on the yolk, so the aircraft plowed into the forest and ended in a fireball. Nope, ain't flying in one of them.

__________________
Thank You!
Fred
2009 ML350
2004 SL600
2004 SL500
1996 SL600
2002 SLK32
2005 CLK320 cabrio
2003 ML350
1997 C280 Sport

I'm looking forward to flying on the double-decker A380. We make the wings for Airbus here in Britain (the best bit of the plane of course). I think the frogs make the cockpit and fuselage, Germans fuselage and Spanish bits of the tail plane.
So the bits that break are obviously French.

__________________
1993 320TE M104
---------------------------------------------------
past:

1983 230E W123 M102
1994 E300D S124 OM606 (x2)
1967 250SE W108 M129
1972 280se 3.5 W108 M116
1980 280SE W116 M110
1980 350SE W116 M116
1992 300E W124 M103
1994 E280 W124 M104
----------------------------------------------
"music and women I cannot but give way to, whatever my business" -Pepys

Mmmmhmm.... I wonder how it got the name "Scarebus" then.
-Joe

__________________
'81 MB 300SD, '82 MB 300D Turbo (sold/RIP), '04 Lincoln Town Car Ultimate

Sooner or later every car falls apart, ours does it later!
-German Narrator in a MB Promotion Film about the then brand new W123.

Just stumbled on to this thread as I usually don't frequent the open discussions. I flew B-52Gs and a few D models for most of the seventies. Griffiss AFB in upstate NY, Guam for some jungle visits and dropped into a few other stateside bases. We did indeed (and still do) have crosswind landing gear. Unlike most airplanes with heavily loaded main gear & lightly loaded nose or tail wheels, the four main gear (two tires each) on a buf are all fairly equally loaded. All four castor pretty freely and will take up the crab in a landing. We also have little training wheels out near the tip to keep from dragging the tip tanks so the "wing low" method is out. There's a big knob in the center console right behind the autopilot controls that can preposition the gear to a crab. It can be done on the ground to plan on a takeoff crab or in the air to prepare for a landing crab. Great fun to swivel it back & forth while taxiing at a strange base & see the people staring at a sideways airplane. IIRC 30 degrees of crab was about the limit. I was lucky enough to never need that much.

__________________
Norm in NJ
Next oil change at 230,000miles