China Airlines II - emergency landing Western Japan - ran out of fuel??

[slip and turn]

OK then I'll be first since it was on tv news 30 minutes ago before I went off to a meeting but evidently no-one else picked up on it / came here with it yet - BBC News24 reported this as an emergency landing 'because it ran out of fuel' - they said they got the story from one of the newswires - forget which one.

Anything in it? Or was it nothing of the sort?

[CherokeeDriver]

A Taiwanese China Airlines plane has been forced to make an emergency landing at an airport in Japan after it ran out of fuel, airport officials say.

The jet was on its way from Taipei to Nagoya when its pilots requested a landing at Kansai, in western Japan.
There were no reports of injuries to passengers or crew.
The incident comes two days after a China Airlines plane exploded in a fireball shortly after landing on Japan's southern island of Okinawa.
All 165 people on board survived the incident, with some escaping just seconds before the plane exploded. Aviation officials from the US and Taiwan have been examining the wreckage for clues as to why the plane burst into flames, and are reported to be focusing on the possibility of a fuel leak from one of the engines.

[bomarc]

proof positive of the old adage: the only time you can have too much fuel is when you are on fire.

[Thor Nogson]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6958944.stm

The jet was on its way from Taipei to Nagoya when its pilots requested a landing at Kansai, in western Japan.

There were no reports of injuries to passengers or crew.

A spokesman for China Airlines, Johnson Sun, told the BBC News website that the main reason the plane had to make an unscheduled stop at Kansai airport was that it had been told that the runway at Nagoya had been closed.

He said the plane waited until the pilots were told that the runway was open and then continued on to Nagoya.

TN

[akerosid]

Now reported that CI acft (and others) diverted due to wild birds on the rwy at NGO.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2007/August/theworld_August522.xml&section=theworld&col=

[VONKLUFFEN]

airplanes run out of required fuel ( from A to B) then divert.
Seems to me that the press that "informs" and some people who read the news have not much of wisdom to tell difference between truth and fantasy.:ugh:

[ExSimGuy]

I think there's a significant difference being missed - between 1."running low" and 2. "running out'



1. - Divert, refuel

2. - Start saying prayers and glide :(

[SeniorDispatcher]

If I dispatch a flight from AAA to BBB, it holds inbound to BBB because it can't land (for whatever reason), and it uses up its allotted holding fuel, and I have to divert it to its alternate of CCC, it doesn't mean that the aircraft is being diverted because it's "running out of fuel". If one thinks about it, it's being diverted to prevent it from running out of fuel.

While I respect the need for media and a free press and all that, one of the things I absolutely detest about many media outlets is their penchant for breathlessly reporting facts while completely ignoring context. The media loves being able to "link" things. One day, it's China Airlines and an aircraft burning up from a fire (apparently fuel-fed). A day or two later, China Airlines diverts because of delays at an airport, some "airport" (and not "airline" spokesperson) mentions "fuel", and the media seemingly concludes China Airlines + "fuel" = another "newsworthy" story, or a way to extend the lifespan of the first story. The fact that the lead sentence of one of articles ("A China Airlines plane made an emergency landing at an airport in western Japan on Wednesday after it ran out of fuel") is so blatantly contradictory seems to make no difference. How did it land if it truly "ran out" of fuel? Another Gimli Glider or Air Transat scenario? Pretty damn unlikely, since the aircraft promptly refueled and re-launched to the original destination, without repairs or investigations. The fact is that it was just a "routine" diversion that had the bad luck to occur a day or two after a major news event. It was no BFD...until the media tried to make it one...

Coming tomorrow: China Airlines catering truck runs out of gas on the way back to the flight kitchen, complete with linked clips of the burned-up 737!

[bomarc]

Chinese, Japanese, British English...no room for error there!

and

As much as people are critical of the press...how many people try to help the truth.

I hope you all try to contact the press and explain gently to them what the truth is from the viewpoint of the pilot, dispatcher, and the myriad of people that make that thing fly.

[Putt]

Senior Dispatcher, I love a good rant about the news media. We have a "real" aviation expert here in Seattle by the name of John Nance. Often, after suffering through one of the "bobbing head's" description of how an airplane works, Capt. Nance comes on to square away the reporter.
Most reorters are meerly news readers and lack any real depth of knowledge of the subjects they report. When I seek information on a given subject, the last place I would go is the local and national media.

"Those who fail to read the newspaper are uninformed. Those who do read the newspaper are misinformed" Mark Twain

Putt

[slip and turn]

On balance, in English at least, it's still only a story only half told by the media and by the airline, isn't it?

For any flght which is forced to divert, no one should fear asking or answering the questions "ok when did you learn of the closure, when did you divert, how much fuel did you have left, how much fuel did you land with?"

We can all learn from that.

[barit1]

My bet is that the reporter got the story correct ("land to prevent running out of fuel"), then the editor "improved" it to sell more on the street ("ran out of fuel"). :ugh:

[bubbers44]

They probably do as all US carriers do and dispatch with legal fuel plus a bit for a minimum hold time. They did it to me all of the time and if the hold was longer you had to divert to an alternate, not because you were running out of fuel, but because with the extended hold meant you didn't have enough to keep holding until the runway opened up. It is totally safe to go to your alternate because the company is trying to save money by not carrying extra fuel. This happens maybe once every two years per crew and the company thinks it saves money. The only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire. I also know what it costs to ferry fuel. I have hovered over TGU in Honduras for over an hour many times trying to land with no nav aids operational in a 757 and got in every time because of the extra fuel to land in VMC conditions. Each flight requires specific fuel planning logic.

[bomarc]

bubbers :

<<<Each flight requires specific fuel planning logic.>>>

And usually its up to a good pilot to figure it out.

[bubbers44]

Yes, that is why a good pilot gets involved with fuel planning, especially when he has the local knowledge of what to expect at destination. I always let them , dispatchers, do it first and only when I thought I knew a better way with fuel load with expected conditions at arrival time intervene.

[akerosid]

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070823p2a00m0na003000c.html

It appears that a JAL aircraft* landed at NGO and squished a few seagulls, closing the runway for a while ... yet the media focus is on CAL, which was nowhere near the place and simply had to divert until the runway was open again! Seems to be more a case of Japanese media bias, rather than any fault on the part of CAL.

(*Initial report from this newspaper didn't even mention that it was a JAL aircraft.)

[India Four Two]

Of course, "running out of fuel" might just be poor translation for "running low on fuel".

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Question is, did it happen "on the runway" as did, we are reliably informed by the media, the major accident earlier in the week....

[Mike773]

bubbers44: that is why a good pilot gets involved with fuel planningI would hope all captains get involved in fuel planning. In my outfit we dispatch with all the legal minimums plus a bit extra on each PLUS "extra fuel". We know there is likely to be ATC holding at NRT on arrival and we add extra for deviations around the ITC zone etc.. 90% of the time the captain OKs it, but sometimes he asks for a bit more. We always give it to him.

Once I mentioned in the briefing some enroute CBs and said "but you've got 30 minutes extra fuel so you should be OK". Captain replied, "yeah, but you're not the one in the sky". I've never forgotten it. I'm more than happy to lose some fuel to tankering then have the flight divert. None of the flights I've dispatched have every diverted for fuel. Hope it never happens!:ok:

akerosid: Initial report from this newspaper didn't even mention that it was a JAL aircraft.
So? Is a bird strike the operator's fault necessarily? :=

[Schnowzer]

So? Is a bird strike the operator's fault necessarily?

No its the birds fault!

Being a Japanese bird and taking stereotypes to the extreme, I suspect it was trying to commit suicide by diving down an engine. The zenophobic Japanese news reporters have been know to breed special Kamikaze ducks that are then trained to identify flights that might force Air China aircraft to run out of fuel.

The bird involved yesterday was named Harold and had just returned from his african holidays. He was not actually supposed to be involved but due to fatigue issues failed to spot the giant airliner chasing him.

Copyright ALOB News

[Mike773]

I like it! :) Those lurking reporters will be on the lookout. I see a Time coverstory, or better yet an Oprah episode about the plight of the poor road and air-kill animals!