Low stocks of JetA-1 at LHR?
who appear do inadequate planning for major disasters and interruptions of vital supplies.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
been there yesterday,4hrs flight inbound and 2.30 hrs flight back to home (nice headwind..
.)
I've been tankering fuel,and took only 2.5 T from LHR.
But I've asked the fueling guy what does he know about any limitations regarding fueling operations,he doesn't know.Well,can I take 10T? Don't know..But my operations had informed me the max is 2.5T ,so...
But he told me that most a/c came with a lot of fuel,..Jamaica 330 landed with 95T ,and an Air Canada,landing with a lot of fuel,and with strong gusts,ws, blow some tires 2 days ago..
.)I've been tankering fuel,and took only 2.5 T from LHR.
But I've asked the fueling guy what does he know about any limitations regarding fueling operations,he doesn't know.Well,can I take 10T? Don't know..But my operations had informed me the max is 2.5T ,so...
But he told me that most a/c came with a lot of fuel,..Jamaica 330 landed with 95T ,and an Air Canada,landing with a lot of fuel,and with strong gusts,ws, blow some tires 2 days ago..
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alexban...
Air Jamaica dont operate A330's...but should you mean the A340, then i dont think they landed with 95T of fuel, got a feeling that this might just put him over his Maximum Landing Weight .
Of course i am willing to be corrected should i be wrong.
Air Jamaica dont operate A330's...but should you mean the A340, then i dont think they landed with 95T of fuel, got a feeling that this might just put him over his Maximum Landing Weight .
Of course i am willing to be corrected should i be wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: EGKK
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Canada claimed strong gusts and w/s. Actually bullsh1t, I was immediately behind him on the approach and had to go around due to the debris on the runway, there was no adverse weather, it was comfortably first solo weather.
Whether they were claiming the apparent adverse weather caused them to not attempt a CDA or some erractic localiser tracking I really don't know. After following the approach I was not at all surprised at the result.
Whether they were claiming the apparent adverse weather caused them to not attempt a CDA or some erractic localiser tracking I really don't know. After following the approach I was not at all surprised at the result.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manofman,i stand corrected,i just told what the fuelling guy told me,and I'm not sure about the jamaica type,i guess he said 330 about air canada.
QAR I don't know about thursday,but on friday I had some work landing the 737,with speed going from Vref to placard speed,and them only saying 10 kts windshear at 1000'
.
But you were right behind him,so you should know better.Maybe it was a short burst of wind,right at touchdown,added the max landing..
QAR I don't know about thursday,but on friday I had some work landing the 737,with speed going from Vref to placard speed,and them only saying 10 kts windshear at 1000'
.But you were right behind him,so you should know better.Maybe it was a short burst of wind,right at touchdown,added the max landing..
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all these tech stops and ferrying fuel for LHR operations, can anyone guess how much extra is being used.
A Million Litres a day may be.???
About time Airlines forced to use other Airports until fuel problem fixed.
Does anybody know how long problem will last.???
A Million Litres a day may be.???
About time Airlines forced to use other Airports until fuel problem fixed.
Does anybody know how long problem will last.???
Last edited by Joetom; 18th Dec 2005 at 10:09.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As this wasn't caused by the airlines involved, and I would guess that there must be some service level agreements in place with the fuel suppliers affected, and, that force majeur (act of god as I understand it) hasn't been proven yet, I wonder if there will be some hefty compensation claims from the likes of BA and QF.....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the approach to EGLL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fuel situation at LHR hasn't changed much since the Buncefield fire, and the present information is:
Due to the events at Buncefield LHR fuel supply has been reduced by about 30 per cent. A NOTAM has been issued requiring all airlines operating into LHR to maximise fuel uplift from originating stations.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know, the need for tech stopping by some airlines has been pretty much eliminated now......most carriers have settled into the required pattern in terms of inbound tankering which has reduced demand sufficiently such that operations are pretty much unaffected.....certainly as far as flight schedules are concerned, though the airline number-crunchers might have a different view!!
