HI Bakela
Your post:
_________________________________________________
As an afterthought, SAA just a few days ago had their pax stranded on an island for three days (SAA pays = government pays = you and I cough), and SAA said they had no standby aircraft as all aircraft were involved in the rest of the schedule. What I don’t understand is that 702 Talk Radio reported that the pilots realised after take-off that they would not reach Atlanta due to a shortage in fuel and then turned back. “Operationally, SAA is sound"? Mikemal, I believed so as well until I heard the above.
_________________________________________________
If you believe everything the press tells you, good luck to you.
The truth of the matter is there was a fuel tank malfunction, a ruptured duct to be specific, and this caused a fuel feed problem out of one of the 4 main tanks. The fuel in this tank then became unusable, i.e. could not be used to feed its associated engine. Thus, as your grade 1 maths will tell you, if one quarter of the fuel (approximately) is thus not available you would probably end up "short of fuel".
So yes, the pilots realised that there would not be enough fuel in the other tanks to take the aircraft to JFK and did what sensible, well-trained pilots do. They thought, planned and decided to return to a suitable airport for a safe landing. This happened to be SAL. The rest is, as you said, not a Flight Operations problem.
Hope this clears this up.
Now if only the press would use their noggins and contact someone in the know....
But then, you should never let the truth spoil a good rumour!
Cheers
Mike