United SFO to HK flight turns back due to fuel issues

[BayAreaLondoner]

A nice incendiary headline in the the South China Morning Post United Airlines flight bound for Hong Kong ‘runs out of fuel’ and makes emergency U-turn back to San Francisco (http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/1866635/united-airlines-flight-bound-hong-kong-runs-out-fuel-and)

It will be interesting to see what was the cause of the increased fuel consumption.

[ExXB]

From other forum it was a fuel leak rather than insufficient fob. Hence the 'emergency' declaration. SFO is major maintenance base for UA and likely better suited for customer care at that time of the morning.

[B2N2]

And that's why we use a Point of Equal Time and a Point Of no Return.

[MarkerInbound]

Two hours into a 14 hour flight is no where near the equal time point. It was probably a redispatch with Tokyo as the initial destination but the howgoesit must have must have come up "not very well" quickly.

[wanabee777]

Reminds me of the Airbus that dead sticked it into Lajes several years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

[Hong Kong Dave]

ExXB :- Are you able to provide a link to the "Other Forum" thread ?

[ExXB]

airliners(dot)net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6519412/ , although that forum is not usually know for its technical expertise :hmm:

[stilton]

Why is this even news :confused:


'No passengers were injured'


Unbelievable..

[golfyankeesierra]

And that's why we use a Point of Equal Time and a Point Of no Return
I wouldn't recommend using "point of no return" in case of increased fuel consumption ;)

[safelife]

Even the point of equal times seems critical then :}

[Spooky 2]

First of all there are probably two, maybe three ETPs on a flight plan between SFO-HKG so the first posters comments are somewhat meaningless. If the fuel score was trending downward this early in the flight one might suspect a leak assuming the fuel flows appeared normal. Sounds like the crew took the prudent course of action and all turned out well.

[RAT 5]

Sounds like the crew took the prudent course of action and all turned out well.

If it is a critical issue: "when there's doubt there is no doubt." A risk/threat assessment, surely, would dictate a land at suitable. Departure airport, fuel allowing, seems sensible.
PNR's ETP's seem dodgy if there is a leak. The leak rate could change, and it would take quite a time of observation to determine the rate accurately in the first place.

[Airbubba]

Sounds like there was no leakage visible to the fire crew when they took a look at the plane after landing:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ksfo/KSFO-Twr2-Oct-11-2015-1000Z.mp3

Here's the FlightAware plot, they were getting close to ANC when they made the turn:

United (UA) #869 ? 10-Oct-2015 ? KSFO - KSFO ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL869/history/20151010/2030Z/KSFO/KSFO)

I'm not so sure ETP's were a player in this one.

Don't believe I've ever used the 'Point of No Return' in many years of Pac Rim and Atlantic crossings, is this a military or British term?

[Union Jack]

Don't believe I've ever used the 'Point of No Return' in many years of Pac Rim and Atlantic crossings, is this a military or British term? - Airbubba

Interesting - I recall on a Piedmont flight from UK to Charlotte, obviously a few years ago now, when the Captain announced, "If you care to look out of the windows on either side, you will see that we have just passed the point of no return."

His next announcement was, "If those of you on the right side care to look out of the window, you will see that we are now safely over North America." We did, but all we could see were the snow covered mountains, glaciers, and icebergs of Labrador...:ooh:

Jack

[Spooky 2]

PNR is not common term these days but you may see it in an island dispatch with no viable alternates. Mostly a biz jet term or.....a re-run of the High and the Mighty. Like you I have not seen this in a Part 121 operation.

[Herod]

Interestingly enough, I always kept an eye on PNR when operating to Keflavik/Reykjavik. The planned alternate was Akureyri, which is not the sort of place to take a 737 on a dark and dirty night. Glasgow was the nearest 24 hr civil, and Kinloss the military. I always liked to be sure of KEF before reaching PNR. Puddle-jumping I know, but the principle remains the same.

[RAT 5]

"If you care to look out of the windows on either side, you will see that he has just passed the point of no return."

I think this was said by the MD on floor 24 of a 25 floor office block as the CFO he'd just fired was seen going south.

a re-run of the High and the Mighty.

Ah, Earnest K.

I heard stories about the early days of Laker BAC 1-11 going into the Canaries, e.g. TFN. That's the furthest island. At TOD they had to expect a guaranteed landing at TFN as they had no diversion, or they dropped into Las Palmas for full. In other words it was a technical diversion from Las Palmas to TFN with no further alternate. I suspect there are still a/c operating on routes where PNR's are relevant. Not everyone flies around in big shiny high capacity jets. Given todays thinking a/c are being stretched to maximum/minimum everything.
Even in the days of 90mins ETOPS with basically medium range a/c this was a problem. By extending ETOPS to 2hrs it was often removed. With 150mins it all but disappeared. 180 mins? No problems. Nice when you can change the rules to make the situation easier and suit your wishes.

[Airbubba]

PNR is not common term these days but you may see it in an island dispatch with no viable alternates. Mostly a biz jet term or.....a re-run of the High and the Mighty.

Yep, this famous overwater decision scene is sometimes whimsically credited with forming the basis for the modern egalitarian CRM flight deck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnrTq9Y-uJY&sns=em

[BayAreaLondoner]

That's some good yoke action in that video!

[gatbusdriver]

As has been stated, PNR's and ETP's are based on normal fuel consumption.

The PNR is alive and well in Doha, it just comes under a different acronym (PDP). Used for PER.

[No Fly Zone]

Gawd! Not another one! We don't know the complete details, but the UAL B744 darn sure did not "Run out of Fuel!" While Anchorage was far closer, with NO known risk, it becomes a logistics issue; what airport can reasonably accommodate a B744's load of PAX - and service the airplane? SFO is just happens to be UAL's major B744 base and the city can absorb the pax far easier than Anchorage. (Duh?) Had this been a genuine emergency, requiring that he airplane land ASAP, I'd guess they had at least a dozen RWYs to select from between point of realization and SFO. Perhaps questionable at first glance, that crew had multiple (other) options available and chose the best one available and while always having a Plan-B in their pocket. One cold fill a page listing B744 suitable runways between their location and SFO, so they had ample options.
In addition, given the nature of today's UAL, they did not make their (SFO) choice in a vacuum; their own operations and dispatch staff, plus Mx and customer service had plenty of input. (Three++ hours warning of the need to accommodate a load of pax at SFO is better than visiting Vancouver with only a few minutes of warning, for example. Plenty of catering available, flying close to the coast or inland etc., the list is endless, but that crew always had multiple options. Perhaps an inconvenience for some pax, but it is difficult to fault the boys (and girls?) driving for anything. Good Job, UAL!
(Personally, I can and will fault UAL's on-board soft product until the cows come home. They are NOT competitive with other carriers and many of their cabin crew truly do not give a :mad:. UAL is also a careful and safe operator and folks in seats 0A, 0B plus augmentation are a darn sight better than many of the carriers who service this flight's intended destination. Don't know about you, but I'll accept cold/poor food and service in any class, before I'll risk my neck with a carrier staffed by those with little more than Learner's Permits. Trans-pond flights should be flown by the grownups. :ok:

[roberbj]

If you can stomach all the technical jargon, read ICAO Doc 9976 (http://www.ifalpa.org/store/doc9976.pdf) to understand what PNR is. PNR has been around since airplanes had wooden propellors.

[Spooky 2]

Okay... so tell me when you saw a PNR on your last crossing to where ever you fly. Might see it in the SoPacific but not like anywhere else and certainly not on any ETOPS flights be it 2,3,or 4 engine

[wanabee777]

By definition, ETOPS only applies to twin engine operations.

[Airbubba]

By definition, ETOPS only applies to twin engine operations.

You might want to update your pubs on this one. :)

Three and four engine ETOPS has been in effect in the U.S. since February 15, 2007. :eek:

At least Mr. Boeing thinks it has, for example, see:

Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental Receives FAA Approval for 330-Minute ETOPS -- EVERETT, Wash., March 18, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/boeing-747-8-intercontinental-receives-faa-approval-for-330-minute-etops-300052074.html)

From the press release linked above:

Although ETOPS has been a requirement for twin-engine airplanes since the 1980s, the regulations have recently been applied to the design of passenger airplanes with more than two engines.

[wanabee777]

Loss of an motor on a 3 or more engined aircraft is typically more of an inconvenience rather than an emergency.

Go figure McBoeing's or the FAA's logic.:O

The viability of the 747 or the A380 in the passenger marketplace is yet to be determined.

[GlueBall]

I had flown my 74 longer than 330 minutes, bypassing several suitable airports, after engine No.2 had gone on vacation. :ooh:

[Capn Bloggs]

By definition, ETOPS only applies to twin engine operations.
You might want to update your pubs on this one.
Yes, it's now called EDTO: Extended Diversion Time Ops. And the rules apply to 3s and 4s.

[wanabee777]

Yes, it's now called EDTO: Extended Diversion Time Ops. And the rules apply to 3s and 4s.

OK. Now that makes a little more sense.

The things you miss out on when you retire...:O

[wanabee777]

You gotta appreciate the mission oriented attitude of the British!:)

Especially the way they stood up to the FAA.:ok:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_268

[Gordomac]

RAT5 ; How I wish you guys were around 20 years ago. I once took the "prudent course of action" and all turned out well. Because it cost the cowboy outfit some money, I was hounded for 4 weeks and decided to throw in the towel. Another poster refers to big boys flying the Atlantic. Try being convinced that Reserves of 5% of the last hour (125kgs) is a good idea on the N Atlantic because it" IS an ERA operation and no-one else is doing it (!)," said the Chief Pilot ! Threw in the Cowboy hat and exchanged for a proper one ; filled up my brand new 767 with 75 tons and headed for the tropics. Deep joy........................Bring it on...............Here come the Rodeo outfit !

[Spooky 2]

Thanks guys you saved me from a lot of typing. 180 applies to all pax aircraft tris & quads beyond 180. It's been that way since 2007 as I recall and it's still referred to as ETOPS in the AC120-42B

[RAT 5]

RAT5 ; How I wish you guys were around 20 years ago.

Hi Gordomac. I'm not sure what you meant by this, but I was. Just hanged up the headset. I can empathise with some CP's ideas of fuel loads. I did fly for one outfit Europe-Caibbean, and their philosophy was minimum fuel because the flight plans were accurate and 5% contingency was = 45 mins. Hm? Forecasts of jet streams based on 12 hour old met data. Jet streams of 120-150kts and only to be 20 degrees off angle and and your forecast G.S. plummeted by 60kts. Added to that you got 2000' below optimum all for 7 hours. The first airfield you might come to was your destination and an NPA non-radar environment. Minimum fuel my backside. The a/c needed to be where the return crew were otherwise the FTL's blew the whole trip out of the sky; and the next day and the next day and the next day.
Coming back to central Europe with tail winds and airfields scattered like confetti before destination is another matter. Max fuel in one direction, minimum in the other. No problem, weather allowing. B767 a really nice a/c for those trips, but when operated at max range it's the same as any other a/c. Distance/GS/Time/Fuel. Laws of physics no matter what the accountants want. Even with max fuel bound for Havana, an extra 45 mins over the FPL, I still had to drop into Nassau. Minimum fuel it would have been Bermuda. That was the bitch that you couldn't drop into USA if bound for Cuba. All those lovely big wide open airfields down the east coast and all off limits.
Like you said: if CP chews your backside for common sense it's time to find a new CP.

[Ancient Observer]

wanabee,

The BA incident was always political action by the FAA. The FAA Safety folk were deeply embarrassed by the political action.

That 747 was certified to go wherever the pilot was willing to take it on 3 engines.

All BA and CAA had to do, (other than using up some fuel as extra pax to USA for a couple of trips) was wait. Then, the politicians in the FAA moved on to something else.

[wanabee777]

That 747 was certified to go wherever the pilot was willing to take it on 3 engines. Maybe if BA Flight Control would have just redispatched the flight to Manchester or Birmingham rather than the resultant declared emergency, the FAA wouldn't have gotten so hot and bothered about it.

But, like you said, politics took precedence.

The FAA's proposed $25K fine was just a mild slap on the wrist, regardless.

[tdracer]

Just a clarification - as someone who has to deal with the ETOPS regulations - the 3 and 4 engine ETOPS rules (and the FAA still refers to it as ETOPS :ugh:) don't really apply to the engines. They really have to do with the ability of the rest of the aircraft systems to deal with an extended diversion (e.g. cargo fire suppression).
Also, the 3 and 4 engine ETOPS only applies to passenger aircraft - freighters are exempt.

[Airbubba]

Yes, it's now called EDTO: Extended Diversion Time Ops. And the rules apply to 3s and 4s.

That's probably what they call it over in England, but as tdracer points out, it's still ETOPS with the FAA and at United Airlines. :ok:

Also, the 3 and 4 engine ETOPS only applies to passenger aircraft - freighters are exempt.

Freighters are exempt under a long standing concept of lower regulatory standards since a freighter crash would presumably cause 'no significant loss of life'. FAR Part 117 crew rest rules are another area where freighters are conspicuously exempt from U.S. regulations.

[Landflap]

Cripes, and when WE wrote the book on flying the "Big Twins" over the N Atlantic, making use of the N Atlantic Track System, it was called EROPS (I think). Or, maybe EROPS replaced ETOPS. Very confusing but the logic remains much the same. This thread is about a crew becoming uncomfortable about fuel state (for whatever reason) and made a "prudent decision" which resulted in a good outcome. Cool, balanced and accurate interpreters like "RAT5", "AIRBUBBA" and "DEPTRAI" would have been welcome judges 20 odd years ago. I think that is what "GORDOMAC" was suggesting. He did replace the CP who did not posses the same skill set and never looked back.

[wanabee777]

Dispatched with the wrong fuel load?

Wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

[Spooky 2]

Who is the "WE" group you speak of?? I believe Boeing built the 767 and wrote the book which the authorities approved way before the WE was even aware of such a thing and it is still ETOPS. Get over your self:)

[fireflybob]

PNR is not common term these days but you may see it in an island dispatch with no viable alternates

That would be PNA then - Point of No Alternate - not the same as PNR.

[Capn Bloggs]

If you don't have an alternate then it still is a PNR-back to the departure airfield.

[fireflybob]

As an example flying London to Bermuda with island reserve and Halifax as an alternate there would be a Point of No Alternate. Additionally there would be PNR between LHR and BDA if you like.

However I agree if there are no alternates it would be PNR that is the limiting factor.

[Airbubba]

Dispatched with the wrong fuel load?

Wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

I was thinking the same thing. On the LiveATC.net tapes they seem to indicate that they are returning to SFO for a fuel leak but after landing they initially wanted to taxi straight to the gate with no further assistance required. The tower controller said the crash crew wanted to look them over first. Nothing was evident on the ARFF crew inspection so they then went to the gate.

Is it possible that they initially thought the fuel burn discrepancy was due to a leak or gauge error and then, after conferring with Dispatch (or whatever the 'modern' term is at United), realized that the missing fuel was due to an error with the paperwork? Wrong altitude, wrong weights, wrong winds, most of us have seen this sort of thing on (hopefully rare) occasions over the years.

[Airbubba]

Cripes, and when WE wrote the book on flying the "Big Twins" over the N Atlantic, making use of the N Atlantic Track System, it was called EROPS (I think). Or, maybe EROPS replaced ETOPS. Very confusing but the logic remains much the same.

Are you referring to the early days of the B-767 on the NATS when under ICAO rules it could go 90 minutes from an adequate airport but the FAA still required compliance with the 60-minute rule?

As discussed in another recent thread here, the FAA granted an exemption from FAR 121.161 as early as 1977 for operations in the 'Caribbean Sea'. Many legacy U.S. airline Ops Specs still pay homage to this '75-minute rule' in 'benign areas of operation' even though it is nowadays somewhat obscure.

B767 a really nice a/c for those trips, but when operated at max range it's the same as any other a/c. Distance/GS/Time/Fuel. Laws of physics no matter what the accountants want.

Over the years the geniuses on the ground have come up with ever more devious ways to put on less fuel on overwater flights whilst (I'm picking up the PPRuNe dialect ;)) complying with the regs.

That planned re-dispatch has been used for decades to get around the flag operations reserve fuel requirements. On one fleet it was discovered that flights had been dispatched for years on a milk run route with the plane too heavy to legally land at the initial dispatch airport. Don't know if the feds ever found out about it but at least the paperwork was quietly changed and more ICAO/flag ops reserve fuel added for a more distant initial dispatch airport.

I don't see the planned re-dispatch much anymore but the latest ETOPS trick in the vogue seems to be to only list one ETOPS alternate. You don't have an ETP (duh :)) but you get a CFP (Critical Fuel Point).

Even if there are plenty of airports within the diversion mileage (the ETOPS rules are in minutes but the area of ops is defined by mileages derived from still air flight in the Ops Specs where I've worked). Somehow, listing only one ETOPS alternate takes advantage of regulatory wordplay between 'adequate' and 'suitable' airports, decreases the weather constraints and lets the company put on, you guessed it, less fuel. :ugh:

[FoxHunter]

I know of a case where a DC10 Freighter departed London bound for mid-America. They had a payload of 150,000 lbs, but their flight plan was based on a 50,000 lb. payload. The crew did not discover the problem until their enroute fuel burn was way off. They had to land short for additional fuel.

[cappt]

I was thinking the same thing. On the LiveATC.net tapes they seem to indicate that they are returning to SFO for a fuel leak but after landing they initially wanted to taxi straight to the gate with no further assistance required. The tower controller said the crash crew wanted to look them over first. Nothing was evident on the ARFF crew inspection so they then went to the gate.

Is it possible that they initially thought the fuel burn discrepancy was due to a leak or gauge error and then, after conferring with Dispatch (or whatever the 'modern' term is at United), realized that the missing fuel was due to an error with the paperwork? Wrong altitude, wrong weights, wrong winds, most of us have seen this sort of thing on (hopefully rare) occasions over the years.

Would a stop into ANC for fuel be out of the question then? Domestic ops make unscheduled fuel stops from time to time. They may have been looking at duty/flight time issues.
Just seems odd to haul all the way back to SFO if its a suspect fuel leak.

[wanabee777]

It is not unheard of for unscrupulous freight forwarders to surreptitiously put cargo onboard an aircraft which is not included in the load manifest, thus effectively stealing revenue from the airline involved. More often than not, the weight discrepancy is not significant and goes undetected. However, the following indications can manifest themselves when heavier than planned gross weights are encountered.

First indication in the cockpit is a "STAB GREENBAND" msg during taxi or an aircraft that is not ready to fly at rotation speed coupled with the elevator trim being way out of wack.

Second indication is a progressive overburn on the "how-goes-it" log caused by higher than normal cruise power settings.

Third indication is an AOA showing "slow" when established at a final approach speed which has been calculated based on the assumed zero fuel weight.

[Gordomac]

SOOKY2 sounding very irritable . I know LF and I think he was just being a bit mischievous. Worked eh ? AIRBUBS, I was on the 757, 1987 when we headed out over the N Atlantic. Boeing might have designed the 767 for ETOPS but, crikey, "WE" (sorry Spooks) were doing it with the smaller one. I don't think my company were the "first" either. We shared Airspace with other heroes like Britannia & Monarch. At the risk of setting off Spooky2, I THINK it WAS EROPS !! Doesn't matter, the shared room parties in room 131 at the Holiday Inn, Bangor Maine, after another successful Atlantic crossing were the stuff of Legend. I THINK "we" started with 75 mins. Later went to 90 and then a bit more and a bit more and a bit more. Always safe with healthy fuel loads but attempts at pursuasion, in another company, that 5% of the last hour for contingency on the N Atlantic was "safe" , turned me from THE best looking Dude on the N Atlantic to a little, old, white haired wreck in room 131. Changed the outfit.

RAT5 ; hope you enjoy your retirement as much as I am mine.

[Spooky 2]

Gordmac thanks for the morning chuckle:) Only wished I was retired but continue to work in this crazy business.