Qantas QF16 diversion to AKL today? [Archive]

SierraOneFoxtrot

29th Jan 2009, 06:42

Anyone know why QFA16 (LAX-BNE) came to AKL this morning?

Aircraft was VH-OJR and noted on finals to AKL around 20:30 UTC 29 Jan.

Flightstats (Track Flight Status, Airport Delays and other Flight and Airport Information (http://www.flightstats.com)) shows the flight as 169 minutes late getting into BNE for the 27 Jan (US time) LAX departure after being 50 minutes late leaving LAX.

Thanks
S1F.

blind freddy

29th Jan 2009, 07:26

SierraOneFoxtrot

29th Jan 2009, 07:44

AKL seems a long way off the great circle track LAX-BNE which passes more or less over Noumea.

Perhaps QF not willing to drop into Nadi :hmm:

PW1830

29th Jan 2009, 09:09

The winds on the day have no knowledge of the great circle track

Jed Clampett

29th Jan 2009, 09:46

The planned flex track on the day probably brought them very close to AKL. If fuel was a problem due to max TOW out of LAX limiting their fuel capability on departure then a pit stop in AKL was more than likely a very prudent decision. Also a possibility was a medical diversion. Just a normal days work.

Eastwest Loco

29th Jan 2009, 11:11

Nothing in Flifo regarding anything but AKL being a waypoint added to the service.

It could be (not discounting planned route) that holding requirements and/or predicted weather for NOU,NAN and other possibles precluded them

Whatever, I am sure the crew made the decision based on what was best and safest.

Best all

EWL

TBM-Legend

29th Jan 2009, 13:24

crew issue. I believe one tech bod went sick. somehow went to AKL picked up some new crew, pax stayed on board and then to BNE arrived 10:35AM. clever as the alternative was 24 hr delay. on 19th i was on 16 and we dropped 1500kgs of jet on the LAX taxiway....5 hr delay. crew were excellent..

SierraOneFoxtrot

30th Jan 2009, 06:14

Thanks all, I had considered the aspect of winds and the best FlexTrack on the day, but wondered how many extra track miles that would make including the swing south to AKL and then back up to to BNE.

I see now today that FlightAware (FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > Qantas Airways Limited #16 > 28-Jan-2009 > KLAX-YBBN (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA16/history/20090128/0812Z/KLAX/YBBN)) is showing the flight as diverted and with a destination of AKL.

Bullethead

31st Jan 2009, 10:10

TBM-Legend,

Correct, one techie, must have been a Second Officer, went sick in KLAX and the flight operated three pilot to NZAA, where the tech crew were replaced, and then on to YBBN.

According to this;

Great Circle Mapper (http://gc.kls2.com/)

KLAX-NZAA 5652 nms ~ 11+12 (legal three pilot)

KLAX-NZAA-YBBN 6893 nms
&
KLAX-YBBN 6223 nms

So 670 nms the difference, or around an hour and a half extra flying.

Regards,
BH.

SierraOneFoxtrot

31st Jan 2009, 20:21

Thanks for that info Bullethead.

Purely as a matter of interest, would there be any fuel penalty for QF, insofar as the 'new' flight distance was ~670nm longer, assuming the extra fuel required for a second climb to cruising altitude (out of AKL/NZAA), or would they have had enough reserve fuel on board without needing to top-up in AKL?

Keg

1st Feb 2009, 07:58

They would have topped up for sure. Even if the gas was loaded for LAX-BNE they still wouldn't have been able to go the extra distance to AKL-BNE without putting on something extra.

Ref + 10

5th Feb 2009, 07:39

They would have topped up for sure. Even if the gas was loaded for LAX-BNE they still wouldn't have been able to go the extra distance to AKL-BNE without putting on something extra.

especially considering the earlier post

the weather in Brisbane was a bit too marginal today for the fuel the aircraft had. Tempo Low Vis and passing heavy showers all day. I suggest it was a refueling stop, to cope with that.

AQIS Boigu

6th Feb 2009, 14:31

Not too sure, but I would hazard a guess that the weather in Brisbane was a bit too marginal today for the fuel the aircraft had. Tempo Low Vis and passing heavy showers all day. I suggest it was a refueling stop, to cope with that.

maybe it's finally time to introduce LWMO in Oz...then you pretty much always get in (unless the winds are too strong)...

A Comfy Chair

6th Feb 2009, 16:57

You may always get in, but the way the Alternate Criteria for Australian ports are written you'd still need to carry alternate fuel, which you may not have had when you left 16hrs earlier.

BTW... I agree... its about time they actually fired up the Low Vis approaches for Aus... do you think it'll be up and running in Melbourne in time for winter, or another absurd year awaits?

Bullethead

6th Feb 2009, 17:01

"maybe it's finally time to introduce LWMO in Oz...then you pretty much always get in (unless the winds are too strong)... "

Even if BNE, or any other Australian airport for that matter, was capable of Lo Vis Ops there is still a requirement to carry an alternate and unless the aircraft was refuelled in AKL they certainly wouldn't have been able to do so.

Regards,
BH.

Capt Fathom

6th Feb 2009, 20:31

Low Vis Ops...?

All well and good for fog. But not very useful when it's pouring rain and blowing a gale. There's a very good chance you still won't get onto the runway!