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

[Batesy]

I am doing the 9, 31, 32, 10 over the next week though.

How far in advance do you know your schedule? I am going to LHR in August on QF31. Not sure which date yet. Probably the 4th.

 

[LiamR]

How far in advance do you know your schedule? I am going to LHR in August on QF31. Not sure which date yet. Probably the 4th.

I can't talk for QF, but VA's rosters are 28 days long, and your new roster arrives at least 5 days before the next roster period is due to start. Therefore you can know between 5 and 28 days out which flights you'll be working on.

QF could be completeley different.

 

[Sprucegoose]

what about that plane that landed in hudson river not that long ago. he got to go on OPRAH!

Dear oh dear Pu, you need medicating old boy.....

 

[NM]

The A380 that started this thing off honestly had absolutely nothing to do with discretionary fuel, or the fuel policy. I know for a fact that the aircraft departed with an additional amount of fuel. The issues that caused the diversion were a combination of the aircraft burning more than planned, the weather in Melbourne not quite being what was forecast, and runway works that precluded the use of the main runway.

Were the runway works unknown at the time of determining fuel levels before the flight? I understand that runway works alter the effective length of runway available for landing, and that may reduce the maximum landing weight for the aircraft to land on the reduced runway length. I can only assume that if the runway works were a factor in the diversion, then its more to do with the effective runway available being too short for the aircraft to land,being a result of unfavourable winds etc at the time of needing to land at that airport, so divert to ADL because you can't land at MEL at that time.

So am I right then in assuming that while they would have had enough fuel to make MEL and land if the local conditions were as expected before departure, but as they got closer to MEL the conditions were such that with the runway works they would not have been able to land,so they either have to enter a holding pattern somewhere and hope the winds/weather conditions change so they can land on the reduced effective runway, or "hold" on the ground at another airport (e.g. ADL) until the conditions at MEL changed to permit landing. That change may be weather or completion of the runway works that caused the reduced available length.

Am I on the right track here? If I am, then its a complete media beat-up.

You also mentioned that the fuel burn was higher than expected. Is that just due to unexpected winds and ATC/traffic not allowing the preferred/optimal altitude, or is that to do with physical attributes of the aircraft (heavier than expected, engines not performing as expected etc). Or some combination of all and the planets were misaligned for that flight on that day?

 

[mannej]

Actually, that's not really the case at all. Daylight, onto calm water, a ditching is a relatively straightforward event (please note, I did not say easy). It hasn't happened all that often, but the Hudson event isn't the only successful one.

The 767 you've shown the video for is a very different animal, because the Captain was involved in a fight with one of the hijackers as he was trying to ditch it. The outcome would have been quite different if he'd been left alone to ditch it wings level.

The most important part of Captain Sullenberger's ditching was not the flying of the aircraft....but the DECISION to make the ditching. Once he'd made that decision, everything else followed.

Maybe my wording wasn't the best, but I was referring to the first ditching comment as if it was a done deal. I do agree that the pilots do train for it, but survival is not always a certainty (for more reasons than just the ditching itself)