News.com "QF A380's running on empty"

[markis10]

Typical stuff from the tele, how can we turn a story about an ordinary diversion into one about a company doing bad things and putting lives at risk etc etc

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...s-saving-on-fuel/story-e6frfq80-1226059307172

QANTAS pilots flying the flagship Airbus A380 super jumbos are being pressured to carry less fuel on long-haul flights in a cost-cutting measure to reduce the airline's soaring fuel bills.

Company insiders have revealed a campaign - which includes charts ranking pilots based on fuel usage - that is increasing the risk of flights being diverted because they could not safely reach their destinations.

Two flights were forced to divert with fuel issues in the past week. A Melbourne-bound A380 was redirected to Adelaide on Tuesday after crew discovered it had burnt through too much fuel.

A flight from London to Singapore was forced to land in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday because it had inadequate spare fuel to circle Singapore while a storm cleared.

The airline yesterday denied the diversions were solely the result of planes not carrying enough fuel.

But documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph reveal that in the past two years the amount of "discretionary fuel" - carried on board flights to deal with emergencies, unforeseen bad weather and airport delays - has been almost halved.

 

[Taezar]

Sometimes I think Qantas are the bicyclists of the air world. ie. You will never see a positive story about commuting cyclists in mainstream media.

Of more interest to be was the plane in the background. What on earth is that! So cute!

 

[MelUser]

I think NEWS was correct to run this story.

It is an embarasment to Qantas that it does not fuel the A380 enough in Singapore so that it can reach Melbourne.

When I take my car to the service station I fill the fuel tank to FULL.

If Qantas had adopted this approach out of Singapore then the plane bound for Melbourne would have landed in Melbourne without the need to refuel in Adelaide.

In my view there are no excuses for what happened. Whether or not this is news is up to the readers of NEWS Ltd publications!

 

[markis10]

Sometimes I think Qantas are the bicyclists of the air world. ie. You will never see a positive story about commuting cyclists in mainstream media.

Of more interest to be was the plane in the background. What on earth is that! So cute!

Its an A300-600SF "Beluga" Airbus Beluga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its a follow on from the supper guppy!

 

[nlagalle]

I think NEWS was correct to run this story.

It is an embarasment to Qantas that it does not fuel the A380 enough in Singapore so that it can reach Melbourne.

When I take my car to the service station I fill the fuel tank to FULL.

If Qantas had adopted this approach out of Singapore then the plane bound for Melbourne would have landed in Melbourne without the need to refuel in Adelaide.

In my view there are no excuses for what happened. Whether or not this is news is up to the readers of NEWS Ltd publications!

MEL_Traveller, unless you are a pilot (or work in aviation), commenting how an aircraft needs to be filled up is foolish.

For a start you cannot simply say - "fill 'er up mate" because of a few reasons the main one being weight comes into it. More fuel on board means less pax/cargo translating to higher fares. More fuel on board also means a higher fuel burn.

The thing to remember here is that QF010 HAD enough fuel to reach Melbourne, as flights carry a fixed and variable fuel reserve. these however are only used if a diversion is necessary - ie. got to MEL and it was fogged in etc. So it was never going to sun out of fuel.

The other incident mentioned in the story probably doesnt give you the full story. adverse weather conditions probably meant it couldn't circle for the required time so took the cautious approach and diverted. i wonder how many other aircraft did the same at that particular time

A pilot would always give themselves ample fuel for normal flight conditions, however without knowing the weather and other conditions you cannot always foresee what could happen.

For all we know, strong headwinds may have slowed the aircraft down, unually long holding time at SIN. Weather plays a major part - I know from experience. In my case our flight to SIN was well under 7 hours (about and hour 20 mins early in fact). My friend who was FO on that flight said he had never seen wind conditions like it (we took a very westerly track to take advantage of the winds.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

A Melbourne-bound A380 was redirected to Adelaide on Tuesday after crew discovered it had burnt through too much fuel.

Headwinds?

A flight from London to Singapore was forced to land in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday because it had inadequate spare fuel to circle Singapore while a storm cleared.

Circling for too long? How long? A plane can't circle forever....look at Die Hard 2. LOL

If the article can be believed, then it is a scary situation for pax. But, l'll take these stories with a pinch of salt. I'm on a A380 next week.

 

[oz_mark]

Hasn't this all come up before? I seem to recall reading much the same stuff back when a 747 went golfing in Bangkok.

 

[oz_mark]

For all we know, strong headwinds may have slowed the aircraft down, unually long holding time at SIN. Weather plays a major part - I know from experience. In my case our flight to SIN was well under 7 hours (about and hour 20 mins early in fact). My friend who was FO on that flight said he had never seen wind conditions like it (we took a very westerly track to take advantage of the winds.

Aha - that explains it, they didn't have time to serve my Heinekin.....

 

[mannej]

I think NEWS was correct to run this story.

It is an embarasment to Qantas that it does not fuel the A380 enough in Singapore so that it can reach Melbourne.

When I take my car to the service station I fill the fuel tank to FULL.

If Qantas had adopted this approach out of Singapore then the plane bound for Melbourne would have landed in Melbourne without the need to refuel in Adelaide.

In my view there are no excuses for what happened. Whether or not this is news is up to the readers of NEWS Ltd publications!

If QF32 had a full tank (without needing too), could you tell me what would have happened?

 

[markis10]

I think NEWS was correct to run this story.

It is an embarasment to Qantas that it does not fuel the A380 enough in Singapore so that it can reach Melbourne.

When I take my car to the service station I fill the fuel tank to FULL.

If Qantas had adopted this approach out of Singapore then the plane bound for Melbourne would have landed in Melbourne without the need to refuel in Adelaide.

In my view there are no excuses for what happened. Whether or not this is news is up to the readers of NEWS Ltd publications!

Let me put things into perspective, a 747 burns around 8 metric tons of fuel an hour, full tanks from SIN would mean an extra 48 tons of weight in that case?????? That costs money and is dead weight, it also endangers the aircraft in terms of taking off with a weight that is far in excess of its maximum landing weight , so if something were to happen requiring an immediate landing, it would be a very dangerous one. I believe an A380 has a MTOW of 571 tonne but a MLW of 391 tonne, by comparison the book figures for a 747-400 are 396MTOW and 295 MLW.

Weather can also change things as has been mentioned, its not unknown for forecasts to change over the course of 8 hours in a significant way and I have seen it happen countless times as an ATC and Pilot. As an ATC I have had to change mandatory reserves for aircraft when weather changes that was not in the original forecast, resulting in similar diversions for aircraft inbound from SIN on numerous occasions.

Driving your car with full tanks and even flying your Cessna 172 with full tanks maybe a good practice (assuming you have done the weight/balance checks etc) but its a no no in most circumstances for airlines to have their aircraft full from both an economic and safety perspective.

 

[hummel]

Let me put things into perspective, a 747 burns around 8 metric tons of fuel an hour, full tanks from SIN would mean an extra 48 tons of weight in that case?????? That costs money and is dead weight, it also endangers the aircraft in terms of taking off with a weight that is far in excess of its maximum landing weight , so if something were to happen requiring an immediate landing, it would be a very dangerous one. I believe an A380 has a MTOW of 571 tonne but a MLW of 391 tonne, by comparison the book figures for a 747-400 are 396MTOW and 295 MLW.

Weather can also change things as has been mentioned, its not unknown for forecasts to change over the course of 8 hours in a significant way and I have seen it happen countless times as an ATC and Pilot. As an ATC I have had to change mandatory reserves for aircraft when weather changes that was not in the original forecast, resulting in similar diversions for aircraft inbound from SIN on numerous occasions.

Driving your car with full tanks and even flying your Cessna 172 with full tanks maybe a good practice (assuming you have done the weight/balance checks etc) but its a no no in most circumstances for airlines to have their aircraft full from both an economic and safety perspective.

This man speaks the truth!

 

[nlagalle]

Driving your car with full tanks and even flying your Cessna 172 with full tanks maybe a good practice (assuming you have done the weight/balance checks etc) but its a no no in most circumstances for airlines to have their aircraft full from both an economic and safety perspective.

That's not to mention that in a 172 you can't fly with 4 pax and have full fuel. Aircraft is way over MTOW

 

[markis10]

That's not to mention that in a 172 you can't fly with 4 pax and have full fuel. Aircraft is way over MTOW

Hence the mention of weight/balance checks

 

[tuppaware]

Qantas Media on twitter said the follow this morning re this:

Clause (d) of Civil Aviation Regulation 233 states the Captain is responsible for fuel order. Qantas does not influence decision in any way

Qantas completely rejects suggestions pilots are being pressured to carry low levels of fuel.

There are laws on fuel levels and our Captains have complete discretion to uplift additional fuel.

Answer all the questions that NONEWS raised in my mind!

 

[nlagalle]

Hence the mention of weight/balance checks

my bad for missing that!!

 

[jb747]

Clause (d) of Civil Aviation Regulation 233 states the Captain is responsible for fuel order.

Quite true, so legally they have no way, in most cases, of forcing a particular fuel order. The exception comes when they have sold so much weight, that you simply cannot get the fuel on board. No choice then.

Qantas does not influence decision in any way

Not directly, at the time the order is being made.

Qantas completely rejects suggestions pilots are being pressured to carry low levels of fuel.

Ah, now that isn't true at all. There is a little bit of paper, called the 'fuel fly spec' that appears in mail boxes every now and then. It is basically an exercise in RETROSPECTIVE fuel planning. It provides no information that will help me make informed orders, but it does rank me amongst other captains on the same type. Add to that the constant letters about discretionary fuel ordering. There's plenty of low level pressure.

There are laws on fuel levels and our Captains have complete discretion to uplift additional fuel.

True, but I'm sure they'd take that off us if they thought they could get away with it.

Having said that...my understanding of the diversion the other day was that it had nothing to do with this, but was a combination of higher than expected fuel burn, plus runway works in Melbourne.

 

[jb747]

I think NEWS was correct to run this story.

It is an embarasment to Qantas that it does not fuel the A380 enough in Singapore so that it can reach Melbourne.

When I take my car to the service station I fill the fuel tank to FULL.

If Qantas had adopted this approach out of Singapore then the plane bound for Melbourne would have landed in Melbourne without the need to refuel in Adelaide.

In my view there are no excuses for what happened.

Yes, but what do you do when you're flying your aeroplane? Sorry, but you really shouldn't comment on operational issues if you have no idea about them.

An A380, will, in round figures, carry 250 tonnes of fuel. It has a max take off weight of 569 tonnes. So, if I carry 250 tonnes of gas, then that leaves 319 tonnes for everything else. As the normal offered weight is around 350 tonnes that would mean I'd have to offload about 31 tonnes....aka 310 passengers. Probably not viable.

So, let's put all of those passengers back on, and reduce the fuel order so that we take off at max weight (and let's ignore the extra wear and tear on everything). Now we have a zero fuel weight of 350 tonnes, and 219 tonnes of fuel. Sweet, we can go a long way on that.

We fly to Melbourne. Because we're about a 100 tonnes heavier than usual, the fuel burn for that sector would be about 25 tonnes more than usual. But, the problems aren't over yet. The total burn would be about 120 tonnes. So we get to Melbourne weighing 449 tonnes, and with about 99 tonnes of fuel on board. Bugger, that's 58 tonnes over max landing weight. Well, we should be able to dump about 19 tonnes of it, and the rest we'll just have to burn. Enter holding pattern for the next 4 hours.

So, we've now reached max landing weight. But, Melbourne is having runway works, and only 27 is available for arrivals. Damn, probably still another 30 tonnes too heavy for that...so back to the holding pattern.

And now we've reached about 10 tonnes remaining, and 360 tonnes, so we can land. Of course, we probably could have just taken the right fuel order in the first place.....

The combination of weather, winds, runway works, and limiting weights (because of the works) makes for an interesting fuel calculation. Any of the factors will only have to vary by a very small amount, and you need to divert.

 

[ozmille]

Good to have a pilot explaining it!

 

[FuzzyAUS]

Good to have a pilot explaining it!

+1000 to THAT!!!

JB as ever, thanks for pointing people right.. just wish news.com.au might 1 day try and get things right.. (yeah yeah, that will never happen)

 

[Oneworldplus2]

The combination of weather, winds, runway works, and limiting weights (because of the works) makes for an interesting fuel calculation. Any of the factors will only have to vary by a very small amount, and you need to divert.

jb747, l'm disappointed Why did you have to bring common sense to a no.news thread??? I like it when they ramp up stories and to try to make something out of nothing.
I have a feeling that someone over at no.news doesn't like QF. A few months ago, there were 3 incidents in one day at SYD, yet only Qantas made the pages. Go figure...