Another disaster averted

[framer]

once you have cut into your required fixed reserve prior to completing the landing you have busted 'the not enough fuel for flight' rule and can be charged as such. If you ran out of fuel and the engines stopped just after vacating the runway, it would make it very easy to prove you did not have the required fuel on board at touch down. Once you are cutting into that fixed reserve and it's reported, you then have to then justify why you were in that position and have a suitable excuse or you can be charged/fined as such

As an Australian who has lived overseas for many years I wonder if we, as Australians, recognise that the thinking demonstrated in the quote above is uniquely Australian. All countries where I have worked the idea of being charged or justifying something in court is irrelevant and doesn’t get a mention. Even the mention of things being ‘strict liability’ seems very strange after being away for a while.

[FINN82]

Originally Posted by C441

One of the Finnair operated Qantas flights diverted into Batam in the last few days after some holding inbound to Singapore?

I've no idea what the weather was or if it was even weather related, however it was nearly always a sector to throw on additional fuel for holding to prevent diversions and the subsequent knock-on impacts if the two crew ran out of hours. Not sure if Finnair are doing this with 2 pilots or 3.

I was on that flight. It was an interesting experience.

The departure from Sydney was originally delayed because the plane was pushed away from the gate and brought back to another gate only at the original departure time. This delayed departure by about an hour. The approach seemed completely normal and we were holding pattern for only 10-15 minutes before the captain announced divert to Batam.

There had been a storm in Singapore earlier, which congested traffic. However, the other planes landed normally.

We were in Batam for three hours. First we were told that refueling would take about an hour, but the first fueling truck didn't reach the wing, so we had to wait for a bigger one. Refueling was completed in 2 hours. Then we waited for the pushback to start, but the captain's announcement came that the pushback tracktor has broken. That's when I lost hope that we would make it to our connecting flight to Helsinki. We were informed that we had to wait for a spare part for the tractor, but fortunately the broken one got out of the way, so the pushback was successful with the new tractor. Then we had to wait for clearance for approx. 10-15 minutes (a lot of stamps and money for the ground staff, the captain announced).

Fortunately, we made it to the connecting flight to Helsinki. The previously successful upgrade to Business was indeed more valuable than I previously thought.

There were three pilots on the flight and I even exchanged a few words with the captain when we were waiting for gate information in Sydney. The captain kept us informed about the situation and everything seemed to be handled very professionally! Safety first.

It would be interesting to hear from the professionals if we originally had a little too little fuel with us and what kind of decision-making process was behind the divert.

[Mr Mossberg]

Mate, the majority of Australians are acutely ignorant of how controlled they are. It's not a country that appreciates the true meaning of freedom of anything.

[Topher1976]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

Ken did you know that Qantas landed at Munich in a 747 below fixed reserve minimum because there were unforecast storms at Frankfurt? Does that disturb you or is it only when Asian carriers do it that your airmanship sensibilities are outraged.

Exactly my thought. It’s not an isolated incident and happens at times. They declared mayday fuel and landed as soon as they could. Pilots can’t control weather conditions no matter where they are from.

[punkalouver]

(13) We Must Land NOW!! The Incredible Story of Singapore Airlines Flight 319 - YouTube

Video report of the incident.

[B772]

Originally Posted by C441

Ansett landed a DC9 in Groote Eylandt in mid-1980 with almost no fuel - not enough for another circuit.

It was a Cairns - Gove flight with a reasonable amount of fuel but not enough for a couple of go-rounds off the non runway aligned VOR approach in Gove and a diversion to Darwin. Groote was not an approved DC-9 airport and the jet remained at the eastern end of the runway for a couple of days before being very carefully turned around and taxied to the apron.

Imagine the media (social and other) coverage that would get today.

Are you sure of your facts C441. My understanding was the a/c was refuelled at GTE and returned to GOV and then continued to DRW - PHE - PER. The next time I see Graham Stewart I will ask him if the a/c sat at the end of the runway for a couple of days.

[C441]

Originally Posted by B772

Are you sure of your facts C441. My understanding was the a/c was refuelled at GTE and returned to GOV and then continued to DRW - PHE - PER. The next time I see Graham Stewart I will ask him if the a/c sat at the end of the runway for a couple of days.

I’m very sure of my facts. I was based at Groote Eylandt at the time and was in the circuit on downwind for runway 28. I was politely requested by the Ansett crew to let them land first and was happy to comply. At the time I was surprised to see a DC9 in the circuit (well left base & final onto 10 for them) and was unaware of their fuel state but very aware that they insisted on landing asap. As I understood it, the issue on the runway was whether they had enough bitumen to turn a 9 around on the runway.
Like a good GA pilot, once the novelty had worn off, I was mainly interested in how I could get in and out with a parked DC9 on the 28 threshold.
Although it’s now almost 44 years ago I do recall it departed Groote empty & went straight to Darwin a couple of days later.

[framer]

Thanks 441, I enjoyed your telling of that story. I was also based on Groote but a decade or so later.