United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel

[markis10]

Wish the journos would spend their time investigating why good old BNE airport have decided their aircraft obs area needs to be closed at 2PM now, not sure what the increase dsecurity risk is between 2PM and sundown??? Maybe its the fact it holds 12 cars that should be paying to park :!:

 

[Nigelinoz]

Low fuel forces US flight's diversion to Brisbane

 

[samh004]

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.

From the most recent article link:

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said that while UA engineers would have to file a report on the incident, it was unlikely there would be a formal full-scale investigation.

If we’re lucky, maybe it’ll leak.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

US flight lands in Qld due to low fuel - Yahoo!7 News

The above link was on the Yahoo home page and incorrectly shows a photo of a Boeing 777 not a Boeing 747-400.

I don't see what the fuss is all about. Quite a few years ago I was on was was to be a non-stop 747-SP LAX/SYD flight on Pan Am and we had to drop in to Nadi to refuel.

Sometimes the predicted flight plan is based on flying at a certain altitude then maybe turbulence occurs at that flight level so the crew ask ATC for clearance to fly at a higher level which burns more fuel than anticipated.

It used to happen on Ansett & TAA 727's SYD/PER when they occasionally had to land at Forrest in WA to refuel, or to quote the journalist "to fill up again".

We should start a thread about dodgy aviation reporting particularly when they show incorrect photos of planes - one of my pet hates. :evil:

Cheers Oz

 

[markis10]

From the most recent article link:


If we’re lucky, maybe it’ll leak.

That would seem to indicate that the diversion was due to the tech issue rather than headwinds, which was the point I was trying to make, the plane was very late in the first place!

 

[Groundfeeder]

Wish the journos would spend their time investigating why good old BNE airport have decided their aircraft obs area needs to be closed at 2PM now, not sure what the increase dsecurity risk is between 2PM and sundown??? Maybe its the fact it holds 12 cars that should be paying to park

Apart from the very obvious and correct answer above, I believe that a major taxiway is to be constructed near there to access 01L/19R. I cant see that the obs park should be moved but if there's no parking fees attached, I'm afraid she's doomed.:evil:

 

[docjames]

/Taxi topic/
They use the area as a taxi inspection and overflow area for the evening peak. Any taxi heading down to get in the pickup queue gets directed there to hold and/or have car and driver's credentials inspected.

/UA Fuel topic/
I was dropping mrsdoc i nto work to pick up some stuff when i was waiting in the carpark (just near gateway briodge) and saw a 744 come straight over the top of me. Not only was it an awesome sight, but I was excited b/c i knew UA doesnt usually come to BNE. Mrsdoc got pretty sick of hearing about it all afternoon until we heard the story on the radio.

I can also confirm i didnt see any fuel flowing out of it, not any pieces hanging off......

I'd say the issue was an indicated mechanical fault, so they took the nearest safe diversion point, in a location where they could fly an a/c up to pickup the pax and shuttle back to syd.

The fuel thing is likely to be a non-issue, but they didnt want to get stuck circling SYD....

 

[Lonely Flyer]

We had a UA 747 diverted into BNE in Sept.09 so I bet if they tried a little they could have got a snap of that and at least been somewhat accurate.

 

[dajop]

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.

Maybe QF loaded more fuel? I'm no techy when it comes to aircraft, IIRC QF 744's have longer range than UA, one of the reasons why UA stopped direct LAX-MEL services as they had to live with a more restricted payload. Given my level of understanding of these things, this could of course be bollocks.

However, it's not that uncommon for diversions to due to low fuel, I know several people who've been in LAX-MEL flights that have diverted to SYD. I guess what made this newsworthy was the plane went US, but whether the two are related seems pure conjecture.

 

[oz_mark]

I guess what made this newsworthy was the plane went US, but whether the two are related seems pure conjecture.

Given the number of people I know that have been on such diversions, methinks it is not as uncommon as the airlines make out.

 

[straitman]

Given the number of people I know that have been on such diversions, methinks it is not as uncommon as the airlines make out.

Agreed.

Flight planning has specific legal requirements for fuel carried. This is fuel for the trip, a fixed reserve and a variable reserve and often the flexibility to recalculate en route. If the winds are stronger than planned or a weather issue or there is a fuel leak or a few other things then a diversion is a requirement. The captain does not do it for the fun of it but it happens more frequently than a lot of people expect.

 

[anat0l]

Ah ha!

I've got to show this thread to someone.

They always thought that it would be <insert very expletive-laden harsh phrase for idiotic here> for any airline not to "fill up the fuel tanks" before a flight, especially for (ultra-)long haul.

Of course the airlines are trying to cut back on costs, i.e. lighter planes with only the bare amount of fuel required + standard contingency. There is obviously a case for always carrying the maximum fuel load in case of emergencies, but.....

 

[Mal]

There is obviously a case for always carrying the maximum fuel load in case of emergencies, but.....

I don't see the purpose of filling the tank to the brim for every flight. It purely is a waste of fuel. I think airlines are smart enough (well most of them - there have been notable exceptions) to load a plane with an appropriate level of fuel to deal with contingencies before setting off.

If a diversion to X airport has to occur to get some more fuel - so be it. There are contingencies in place to deal with this sort of issue... Now if all possible diversion airports are unsuitable (eg storms/whatever), then things get a bit more difficult... but the contingency should cover that type of situation.

 

[harvyk]

Maybe QF loaded more fuel? I'm no techy when it comes to aircraft, IIRC QF 744's have longer range than UA, one of the reasons why UA stopped direct LAX-MEL services as they had to live with a more restricted payload. Given my level of understanding of these things, this could of course be bollocks.

Your sort of right there, QF tend to run 747-400ER's transpac, which have an extra 300 km's of range at full payload. It's not a lot of extra distance, but enough to fly SFO-SYD or LAX-MEL direct with a bit more room for error.

As a side note, QF is the only pax airline to purchase the 747-400ER's.

 

[harvyk]

I don't see the purpose of filling the tank to the brim for every flight. It purely is a waste of fuel. I think airlines are smart enough (well most of them - there have been notable exceptions) to load a plane with an appropriate level of fuel to deal with contingencies before setting off.

If a diversion to X airport has to occur to get some more fuel - so be it. There are contingencies in place to deal with this sort of issue... Now if all possible diversion airports are unsuitable (eg storms/whatever), then things get a bit more difficult... but the contingency should cover that type of situation.

The amount of fuel loaded is very dependent on a lot of factors, sometimes, especially for shorter hops they may "fill to the brim" as it's cheaper that refueling at certain airports, or the quick turnaround will be more cost effective.

On longer trips it tends to just be enough for the trip at hand. From memory the minimum amount of fuel they will load will be enough to get to the distination airport, any of the diversion airports, and then allow holding for 45 minutes at the diversion airport if required (as the diversion airport may not be expecting you). I believe there may be some other rules as well.

 

[markis10]

The ATSB are quoted on insisting a report be filed, this indicates it was not an ordinary diversion. Keep in mind that it is a long flight and requirements can change for holding fuel etc enroute, while ATC keep this in mind its not always possible to give much advance notice of such changes, requiring aircraft to divert to top up!

Believe the Aircraft is still in BNE so the tech issue is not a minor one.

 

[Nigelinoz]

Some interesting comments on a thread in PPRuNe.
UA LAX-SYD low fuel diversion to BNE - PPRuNe Forums
I found the comments in post 5 of the PPRuNe thread about inoperative cross feed valves etc very interesting.

 

[straitman]

Ah ha!

I've got to show this thread to someone.

They always thought that it would be <insert very expletive-laden harsh phrase for idiotic here> for any airline not to "fill up the fuel tanks" before a flight, especially for (ultra-)long haul.

Of course the airlines are trying to cut back on costs, i.e. lighter planes with only the bare amount of fuel required + standard contingency. There is obviously a case for always carrying the maximum fuel load in case of emergencies, but.....

I don't see the purpose of filling the tank to the brim for every flight. It purely is a waste of fuel. I think airlines are smart enough (well most of them - there have been notable exceptions) to load a plane with an appropriate level of fuel to deal with contingencies before setting off.

If a diversion to X airport has to occur to get some more fuel - so be it. There are contingencies in place to deal with this sort of issue... Now if all possible diversion airports are unsuitable (eg storms/whatever), then things get a bit more difficult... but the contingency should cover that type of situation.

There is almost never a requirement to fly with full tanks. As I posted previously there is a calculation of how much fuel is required and this includes substantial reserves. To carry full fuel would, in most situations come at the expense of payload.

 

[oz_mark]

Believe the Aircraft is still in BNE so the tech issue is not a minor one.

I've heard it is on its way back home.

 

[markis10]

There is almost never a requirement to fly with full tanks. As I posted previously there is a calculation of how much fuel is required and this includes substantial reserves. To carry full fuel would, in most situations come at the expense of payload.

Unless your a KC10/KC30 driver


Agree - there is almost never a requirement for an aircraft to fly full with fuel, far cheaper to divert if required, 1 hour of fuel on a 747 is equal to 8T of revenue freight.