Qantas flight forced to divert to Adelaide after fuel shortage

[scanhorse]

Is this normal ??


Qantas flight forced to divert to Adelaide after fuel shortage

Qantas flight forced to divert to Adelaide after fuel shortage - Indian Express (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/qantas-flight-forced-to-divert-to-adelaide-after-fuel-shortage/791931/)

[victorc10]

It is NOT ab-normal.

[KBPsen]

Usually only one question mark is used and then it is without space between the sentence and the single question mark. The use of bold is also not usual.

So no. It is not normal.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Interesting that the newspaper referred to "Fuel tanks empty"... Presumably the aeroplane is a jolly good glider?

[scanhorse]

I See now that its regarded as serious

The Australian Transport Safety Board will investigate the incident.

QF Flight 10 encountered stronger-than-forecast head winds associated with an unseasonably cold weather affecting the eastern states of Australia, which forced the crew to land at ADL.

Low fuel forces Qantas A380 to divert | ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/operations-maintenance/news/low-fuel-forces-qantas-a380-divert-0517?)

;)

[Piltdown Man]

This happens from time to time and although abnormal, this is what crew who work for proper airline do when they find that they will not have enough fuel to complete the flight, with appropriate reserves. Modern day flight planning systems will normally allow an aircraft to depart with exactly the correct amount of fuel plus reserves. But in this part of the world (near the equator), the grid used by meteorologists is pretty coarse and the data very sparse which results in incorrect wind data being used for flight planning. What would really be worrying is if the crew found they were "behind" flight plan fuel overhead Adelaide but I'll stick my neck out and say they (and head office) knew they were "short" shortly after top of climb. Therefore, they re-planned in flight and went to Adelaide. Good guys!

Making a report to Australian Transport Bureau is hardly surprising, it could have been a safety issue and is probably a legal requirement. But any further action by them would be pointless as almost certainly Qantas will be keener to prevent a reoccurrence than they are. Unfortunately though, they'll probably be crawling over the crew, paperwork and anything else they can get their hands in attempt to justify their own existence.

And just to be a bit more controversial, here's little question: Do you think that long haul aircraft always depart with enough fuel to complete their flights?

PM




Answer: No and in fact the answer is "hardly ever." Most aviation authorities allow aircraft to depart with less than the "minimum" required amount of fuel. But when in flight, they then plan to use their contingency fuel, unburnt until that point, which allows then to effectively "divert" to their destination. Not surprisingly there are conditions attached to such operation and every now and again you are unable to land at your destination. Which is a pretty expensive exercise.

[emeritus]

The forecast winds over the southern half of Australia were( still are?) notoriously inaccurate. One frequently used up the variable reserve (10%) westbound.

Fortunately in those days the bean counters had little sway in flt planning and experience saved many a diversion. A system developed when accurate winds were computed ie ins where crews always gave the spot wind and temp at all posn reports.

At flt planning this gave an indication of the accuracy of the forecast and fuel load determined accordingly.

From memory my biggest error was 12% over fuel burn....120 kt wind from the NW instead of from the SW.

The only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire!

Emeritus