United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel

[Slats7]

United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel | News.com.au

A UNITED Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Sydney has been forced to land in Brisbane because it was low on fuel and reported an engineering problem.

A spokeswoman for Brisbane Airport Corporation said the United Airlines flight landed at 11.30am (AEST) today and a another plane had been commissioned from Sydney to transfer the passengers to NSW.


"They had fuel requirements so they had to fill up again, but they also reported an engineering fault," the spokeswoman said.

"They are bringing another United Airlines (plane) up from Sydney to take the passengers back to Sydney."

That photo is very misleading.

 

[samh004]

Sounds like a fuel leak. Can't imagine they simply didn't put enough in.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Slats7]

Sounds like a fuel leak. Can't imagine they simply didn't put enough in.
Posted via Mobile Device

That's what it sounds like.

 

[oz_mark]

That photo is very misleading.

The caption on the photo could have done with a proof read as well.

 

[Slats7]

The caption on the photo could have done with a proof read as well.

I just noticed that, I wouldn't expect anything else from news limited!

 

[samh004]

Hahaha, just saw the photo, was browsing on my iPhone before so didn’t click the link… what a great idea to use that photo!

 

[chrisb]

Sounds like a fuel leak. Can't imagine they simply didn't put enough in.

It could just be stronger winds than expected?

From reading that article i'm not sure that the tech issue and the fuel issue are related.

 

[QF WP]

I hope that IainF hasn't read this yet - his wife and m-i-l are on that flight next weekend

 

[harvyk]

Well no wonder they ran out of fuel, trying to fly an A320 from LAX - SYD... I'm surprised it made it as far as BNE...

What, you mean to say that photo is not of the same aircraft?

I guess it's good to see news limited is as hopeless with reporting on all airline incidents, and not just QF...

 

[2muchplastic]

United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel | News.com.au



That photo is very misleading.

If that's the right photo, then that is the mother and father of all technical faults!
You can just see the editorial review meeting can't you, they're sitting around a table:
Article writer "We can only find one photo of a UA plane, but it's lying on it's side, it's at the wrong airport, and it's the wrong type of plane"
Editor (pauses to transfer big fat cigar from one side of mouth to other) "Stick it in, no-one will ever notice"

 

[samh004]

On the whole issue of using the right photos in articles, is it really that hard to find stock images of the right plane with the right livery?

 

[markis10]

Well that explains the 2 x 744s at BNE today, not sure why they decided to send the 744 up, suppose it beat sitting at SYD for 8 hours!

 

[Sprucegoose]

It could just be stronger winds than expected?

From reading that article i'm not sure that the tech issue and the fuel issue are related.

How different would it be for Qantas on the same route, same time, same plane, presumably and different outcome?

 

[NYCguy]

United pilots are under considerable commercial pressure to load no more than the bare-coughd minimum of fuel required to safely complete the flight.

I've personally been on two SFO-SYD services that have landed at NAN to refuel because of headwinds greater than forecast. I can't explain why QF services didn't have to do the same, although I imagine that all of the 744s (and now 777s and 380s) follow exactly the same track.

A slow leak may also have caused the incident, but since it's claimed that there were still full reserves available, and the Captain didn't request priority handling, that seems unlikely.

 

[Brisbane Flyer]

The photo is from the United A319 that had a landing gear problem a few days ago in New Jersey...very poor journalism, but then again, probably par for the course with news.com.au...

United Airlines Airbus A319 had only minor damage after emergency landing: official

 

[markis10]

Logic would seem to indicate the tech issue was the reason for the divert rather than stronger than expected headwinds, after all there were two UA 747s inbound overnight on pretty much similar flightpaths despite different ports of origin, same despatcher for both and probably similar fuel loads.

 

[NYCguy]

Logic would seem to indicate the tech issue was the reason for the divert rather than stronger than expected headwinds, after all there were two UA 747s inbound overnight on pretty much similar flightpaths despite different ports of origin, same despatcher for both and probably similar fuel loads.

We'll have to wait until the report is published, anything prior to that is mere conjecture.

 

[markis10]

We'll have to wait until the report is published, anything prior to that is mere conjecture.

Why would there be a report as it was a normal diversion, I dont believe the aircraft landed with less than the required reserves for an alternate, although someone should report the journalism, "LA bound" and "a sydney resident reported the same thing happened three days ago" seem to indicate that someone has let the workexperience kids get online :shock:.

 

[NYCguy]

Why would there be a report as it was a normal diversion, I dont believe the aircraft landed with less than the required reserves for an alternate, although someone should report the journalism, "LA bound" and "a sydney resident reported the same thing happened three days ago" seem to indicate that someone has let the workexperience kids get online :shock:.

At Newscorp? Surely not?

 

[oz_mark]

Why would there be a report as it was a normal diversion, I dont believe the aircraft landed with less than the required reserves for an alternate,

I would have thought that a report would be written and filed by the airline. Whether it becomes publicly available is a different question.