United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel

[Nigelinoz]

A friend has just emailed me to say that the aircraft (N127UA?) was involved in a taxiway collision with a QF 767 at Melbourne 3 or so years ago?
Not really relevant to the BNE diversion but interesting,maybe it's a jinxed plane now.

 

[markis10]

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

I stand corrected , it was overhead HNL when you typed that email

 

[zzedzz]

United have now done two diversions in three days over the Pacific route. it sure seems like they are running lean on fuel.

I was on the UA839 which diverted to Brisbane on Saturday. When they changed course, sydney was only 10 minutes further away compared to Brisbane. That suggests the fuel level was acutely low.

 

[markis10]

United have now done two diversions in three days over the Pacific route. it sure seems like they are running lean on fuel.

I was on the UA839 which diverted to Brisbane on Saturday. When they changed course, sydney was only 10 minutes further away compared to Brisbane. That suggests the fuel level was acutely low.

It was the same aircraft that did the divert both times, its too early to say why but it could well be the second trip revealed the real reason for the need to divert.

 

[zzedzz]

Markis,

That is a worry! The same plane involved in both incidents! i cant believe that United are so slack as to allow that to happen a second time just days later.

 

[markis10]

Markis,

That is a worry! The same plane involved in both incidents! i cant believe that United are so slack as to allow that to happen a second time just days later.

Not really a worry, a divert as stated before in this thread is not a cause for concern, there is no suggestion by anyone that the aircraft landed in BNE without the required legal amount of fuel.

 

[zzedzz]

Markis,

Sorry, but I do find it concerning that the same plane in its last two attempts to fly across that Pacific it fails to do so!

Passengers reported sparks coming from its engine when they were started in LAX. The plane was not refuelled in Brisbane, but its engine was closely inspected whilst it sat on the tarmac there.

Is the plane still in Brisbane?

 

[markis10]

Markis,

Sorry, but I do find it concerning that the same plane in its last two attempts to fly across that Pacific it fails to do so!

Passengers reported sparks coming from its engine when they were started in LAX. The plane was not refuelled in Brisbane, but its engine was closely inspected whilst it sat on the tarmac there.

Is the plane still in Brisbane?

I hope the plane was refuelled in Brisbane, it was just short of LAX a little while ago, as for failing to cross the pacific twice, pretty sure LAX-BNE is classed as trans pacific .

The actual flight was only probably shortend by 400km at most, so its not a big deal given the distance flown, and while they may have seen sparks on departure/startup, the PIC would not have waited until 15 hours later to divert, there were plenty of opportuntiies to divert enroute well before BNE was selected, it was not that long ago a QF A380 diverted to Nadi on the same route for instance, and there is that little place called NZ as well closer to home.

 

[zzedzz]

Markis,

Lets be pedantic then. That same plane failed on its last two attempts to fly non-stop from LAX to SYD as advertised!

Its time to put that old dog out to pasture.

 

[markis10]

Markis,

Lets be pedantic then. That same plane failed on its last two attempts to fly non-stop from LAX to SYD as advertised!

Its time to put that old dog out to pasture.

Yes lets be pedantic and deal with the facts rather than FUD, that "old" plane has just turned 10, which is much younger than all but 3 of the non ER QF fleet by comparison, I think she has got quite a few years of service in her yet :shock:

Maybe it has got sick of visiting Australia, if you are worried about multiple issues in a few days have a look at the history of QF A380 no 6 and its delivery flight, perhaps we should retire her?

 

[zzedzz]

Markis,

United state that they intend replacing all of their 747's in a few years. they obviously feel that the planes are old.

The 747's used on the Australian run dont even have personal screens in the back of each seat. They are very backward in what they provide to passengers.

 

[markis10]

Markis,

United state that they intend replacing all of their 747's in a few years. they obviously feel that the planes are old.

The 747's used on the Australian run dont even have personal screens in the back of each seat. They are very backward in what they provide to passengers.

I am sure they do feel they are old when they do actually arrive, note first delivery of the aircraft is not a few years, its 6 years and the aircraft is yet to fly...............so thats probably unlikely. United are replacing the aircraft because of the fuel burn and range benefits, with a smaller capacity aircraft, not becuase they are ready to retire before the next flight.

Sure the 747's they use are not great for IFE, but thats not an indication of the age of the aircraft, you have to remember that IFE is not a strong point of most US airlines, in fact UA is the only US airline to have IFE across its entire mainline fleet.

None of the above is really applicable to the thread, the aircraft was not old, the diversions were not life threatening in anyway and very normal, certainly not requiring the beat up it got, especially with that stupid and misleading photo.

 

[stryker]

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!

Well, no.

For the uninitiated, UA parks a 747 (every day) at SYD 06:30 - 14:00, so it would be available to do a few taxi trip during the day if required.

Not speculation, either.

 

[markis10]

Well, no.

For the uninitiated, UA parks a 747 (every day) at SYD 06:30 - 14:00, so it would be available to do a few taxi trip during the day if required.

Not speculation, either.

Not sure what your point is, they may park a 747 at SYD everyday (and have done since 89 when I worked in the SYD tower) but they dont have a crew available to fly it, in this case they cancelled the SYD-MEL milk run to get a crew to do the trip up to BNE, indicating that they were not expecting the aircraft to be servicable enough to continue its journey or possibly the crew have enough hours, yet the previous LAX-SYD flight the very same aircraft did in fact continue without the need for reinforcements.

 

[straitman]

Markis,

United state that they intend replacing all of their 747's in a few years. they obviously feel that the planes are old.

The 747's used on the Australian run dont even have personal screens in the back of each seat. They are very backward in what they provide to passengers.

zzedzz,

I humbly suggest that you go back and look at some of the previous posts and then start talking the issues from a logical perspective rather than an emotional perspective.

Several people have provided factual detail about how and why these situations occur and it really is not an issue. I also included a very basic breakdown of fuel planning for you. I can assure you that UA does not do their fuel planning any substantially different to Qantas.

The UA aircraft just have a slightly shorter range than those used by Qantas and if weather is against them they have to divert. As markis10 stated if there is a maintenance issue (can happen to anyone) there are many places to divert other than Brisbane. It was pure coincidence that it was the same airframe on both occasions.

The comments about personal screens has nothing to do with weather, fuel planning or maintenance so is totally irrelevant to the argument. Also not markis10's comments about the age of the aircraft in question when compared to Qantas and indeed many other airlines. In airline terms it has not even reached middle age.

 

[zzedzz]

Bill,

Sorry but coincidence is not part of the real world. Lets see how the story unfolds.

 

[straitman]

Bill,

Sorry but coincidence is not part of the real world. Lets see how the story unfolds.

zzedzz,

With all due respect I have to say you are wrong :!: Speaking from 40 years experience in the aviation industry and 17,000 hrs at the pointy end of aircraft and from personal experience I say that in aviation it is part of the real world :!:

 

[zzedzz]

Bill,

Sorry but coincidence is not part of the real world. Lets see how the story unfolds.

 

[NYCguy]

Bill,

Sorry but coincidence is not part of the real world. Lets see how the story unfolds.

Honey, there are many, many coincidences around us every day. For instance, my mother called me last night just as I was thinking about calling her. A psychic bond between mother and son? Hardly... What a crock... It's a coincidence. In fact, many of the things that humans ascribe to the supernatural are merely coincidences that humans believe simply MUST have some sort of "special meaning". For instance...


In 1930s Detroit, a man named Joseph Figlock was to become an amazing figure in a young (and, apparently, incredibly careless) mother’s life. As Figlock was walking down the street, the mother’s baby fell from a high window onto Figlock. The baby’s fall was broken and Figlock and the baby were unharmed. A year later, the same baby fell from the same window, again falling onto Mr. Figlock as he was passing beneath. Once again, both of them survived the event.

The twin brothers, Jim Lewis and Jim Springer, were separated at birth, and adopted by different families. Unknown to each other, both families named the boys James. Both James' grew up not knowing of the other, yet both sought law-enforcement training, both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, and each had married women named Linda. Both had sons, one of whom was named James Alan and the other named James Allan. The twin brothers also divorced their wives and married other women – both named Betty. And they both owned dogs which they named Toy.

In 1953, television reporter Irv Kupcinet was in London to cover the coronation of Ellizabeth II. In one of the drawers in his room at the Savoy he found found some items that, by their identification, belonged to a man named Harry Hannin. Coincidentally, Harry Hannin – a basketball star with the famed Harlem Globetrotters – was a good friend of Kupcinet’s. But the story has yet another twist. Just two days later, and before he could tell Hannin of his lucky discovery, Kupcinet received a letter from Hannin. In the letter, Hannin told Kucinet that while staying at the Hotel Meurice in Paris, he found in a drawer a tie – with Kupcinet’s name on it.

A bit of cut-and-paste work there, but you get the point. Coincidences are all around us, including in aviation.

(And for the record, I think naming your sons James Alan and James Allan is lazy and totally lame!)

 

[mannej]

Markis,

United state that they intend replacing all of their 747's in a few years. they obviously feel that the planes are old.

The 747's used on the Australian run dont even have personal screens in the back of each seat. They are very backward in what they provide to passengers.

If you are going by Wikipedia, it states that UA's 747's will be replaced by the A350.

The A350 is a long way away, so UA intend to keep them running for a while yet.

So basing your statement on that is as unreliable as your logic that you have used regarding Personal IFE (considering it is an optional extra). There are a lot of newer QF/DJ planes going around without Personal IFE...