QF refuelling at Melbourne from an A380????

[thunderbird five]

News is reporting AJ has sent a fully fuelled 380 to Melbourne to refuel planes from during the refueller pay strike.
I doubt this is even physically possible, but if it was, who’s equipment are they going to use and who is going to do it?
You would have to have some qual to refuel an airliner, Kevin from catering isn’t going to do it.
those who know, is this the biggest BS story of the century from mainstream media?
I’ll bet QF has no plane to plane refuelling chapter in their ops manual!
did some $hit for brains see a 380 landing and assume it was a tanker!

[aussieflyboy]

I think you’ll find most domestic aircraft will tanker fuel in to Melbourne so won’t require any fuel today.

The 380 may be defuelled using standard defuelling procedures into a tanker truck and then that fuel may be used to refuel international aircraft that are unable to tanker.

[TWOTBAGS]

Just because you have not heard about it before doesn't mean its not a procedue.
QF have a track record of doing this, I think they used a 744 to do it in NZAA some time. A company I worked for had a procedure to be able to do it between two jets and even practiced the procedure when the fuel at a remote destination was U/S.

[Pearly White]

News is reporting AJ has sent a fully fuelled 380 to Melbourne to refuel planes from during the refueller pay strike.
I doubt this is even physically possible, but if it was, who’s equipment are they going to use and who is going to do it?
You would have to have some qual to refuel an airliner, Kevin from catering isn’t going to do it.
those who know, is this the biggest BS story of the century from mainstream media?
I’ll bet QF has no plane to plane refuelling chapter in their ops manual!
did some $hit for brains see a 380 landing and assume it was a tanker!
There was a thread last month about the difficulties faced when needing to remove excess fuel from an aircraft due to last minute load changes. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/651143-jetstar-excess-fuel-ybbn.html?highlight=fuel+%2Boffload
The only Airbus I know of that has an inbuilt defuel facility is the KC30 MRTT. Did the government come to Qantas assistance?

[Capt Fathom]

An A380 using a ‘QF6000’ callsign positioned from SYD to MEL yesterday afternoon.

[Redpanda]

It is possible.
There are procedures for it.
QF does have the equipment in MEL to carry it out.
Either aircraft to tanker, or aircraft to aircraft.
Engineers can refuel/defuel aircraft.

[VHOED191006]

Let's think about it. If they knew that it wasn't possible (which it is by the way), then why would they send an A380 to Melbourne in the first place? It's not a cheap thing to do. Let's cut QF management some slack here.

Easily QF's most expensive and most useful asset right now!

[davidclarke]

QF Engineers do thing like change engines, landing gear, do heavy maintenance……
FFS it’s just transferring fuel from one aircraft to another for which they are capable of doing. If there’s not a procedure then create one!

Pilots seem to really over complicate things. I once remember a captain refusing to accept a fuel docket on a stick thru the window of an A320 because there wasn’t a ‘procedure’ in the ops manual for it. 🤦

[megan]

This sort of tankering goes back to the days of yore, remember when fuel was a problem decades ago when a mere slip of a lad and we had DC-9's coming to Whyalla to fill the tanks to the brim and transport same to Adelaide, pilots thought it great sport, empty aircraft. First time Whyalla saw a jet.

[Ken Borough]

Inter-plane fuel transfers were very common at Qantas in the 1980s during times of industrial strife. Qantas designed and manufactured the gear for these transfers . The protagonists invariably involved the TWU and/or the Storemen and Packers who weren’t even employed by Qantas. The B747 was a great tanker, bringing fuel up to its MLW for distribution to other aircraft. I dare say the A380 was planned into Melbourne with fuel to its MLW.

[C441]

A380 MLW 392,00kg & Ave Empty Weight 290,000kg.

They'd probably be aiming to get up to 100T usable on arrival.

As an aside, with 400 pax and a bit of other stuff and some dodgy weather at the destination, it was not unusual to be above MLW until the last hour of the flight.

[bazza stub]

Let's think about it. If they knew that it wasn't possible (which it is by the way), then why would they send an A380 to Melbourne in the first place? It's not a cheap thing to do. Let's cut QF management some slack here.

Easily QF's most expensive and most useful asset right now!

It’s expensive but it also breaks the strike which is pretty much what Q is good at.

[Ken Borough]

C441,
Very interesting but the venerable 747 was a superior tanker. The 380 would be stranded if all of the landed fuel was sucked out. Ital ost as useless as the SPs.

[C441]

It’s expensive but it also breaks the strike which is pretty much what Q is good at.
It may minimise the impact on some longer flights, but contrary to the way some media organisations are depicting it, the dispute is not between Qantas and the refuellers rather between the refuellers and their employer who happens to supply fuel to Qantas. However yes; the current Qantas executive do have a history of subverting strike action by any means legal or dubiously legal and regardless of the goodwill impact it may have on their customers. Goodwill towards staff (and vice versa) began disappearing during the tenure of the previous CEO and has been non-existent in operational fields since the current CEO took office.

[CaptainSouth]

Its true
Aircraft arrived with lots of fuel
Aircraft parking behind 380 refuelling direct from aircraft

[Ski Guru]

News is reporting AJ has sent a fully fuelled 380 to Melbourne to refuel planes from during the refueller pay strike.
I doubt this is even physically possible, but if it was, who’s equipment are they going to use and who is going to do it?
You would have to have some qual to refuel an airliner, Kevin from catering isn’t going to do it.
those who know, is this the biggest BS story of the century from mainstream media?
I’ll bet QF has no plane to plane refuelling chapter in their ops manual!
did some $hit for brains see a 380 landing and assume it was a tanker!

I get it, its an anonymous bulletin board, but seriously what is this post?

Really puts into perspective a lot of "qualified opinions" you read on here. Mine included too.

Well at the very least, you have learnt something today.

[Ollie Onion]

When AKL had a fuel shortage a few years ago Qantas flow a couple of fuelled up 747's across and used that to fuel Qantas and Jetstar aircraft. Fuelers were not involved, all done by engineers. Same in MEL I am guessing.

[The Golden Rivet]

Standard procedure in Heavy to pump out the fuel from the next heavy check into the one just leaving heavy, did it heaps of times on the 767

[aeromech3]

Also did it in on Boeings in the 70's but at main base as problem looking after the special Self Sealing fuel hose + bonding wire, the former could not be air freighted with remaining fuel/vapour inside. Reason at main base was often no de-fuel tanker available, the fueling Co. did not often keep one empty and if it did, the fuel removed had to be used by same operator pretty soon after, then they had to do extra checks to that tanker in-case of contamination.

[AerialPerspective]

It may minimise the impact on some longer flights, but contrary to the way some media organisations are depicting it, the dispute is not between Qantas and the refuellers rather between the refuellers and their employer who happens to supply fuel to Qantas. However yes; the current Qantas executive do have a history of subverting strike action by any means legal or dubiously legal and regardless of the goodwill impact it may have on their customers. Goodwill towards staff (and vice versa) began disappearing during the tenure of the previous CEO and has been non-existent in operational fields since the current CEO took office.

Current Qantas executive? I think you need to talk to someone who was around in the 70s and/or 80s. Qantas has had people subverting industrial action since way before it was entered on the stock exchange (again) and long before the current and previous CEO(s) tenure. I remember management loading aeroplanes in the 70s and into the 80s when the company was under government ownership (and during periods of ALP government too).

[Obba]

As a SLF and keep my eye on the flight industry....
Oh. and by the way, I have just finished Fate is the Hunter. Brave (lucky), people...

I thought that planes weren't designed (under carriage), to land fully laden? So I assume that this 380 was empty bar the fuel load.

Would the landing have been a soft landing, or without pax and luggage, a normal landing would have been done..?

[Lead Balloon]

The crew would have selected “FIRM” on the FMS for this kind of landing. Tankering fuel means the undercarriage has to be operated on the back of the drag curve.

[SRM]

Transferring fuel is a standard procedure for most airlines and has been done for over 50 years.

[RVF750]

Even a B737 can do this. Just open the defuel hatch and pull the handle. Then connect a long hose up and bonding wire. Fuel pumps on pressurise the main gallery, cross feed on, and with all the tanks switched off in the refuelling panel, all the fuel will pass out the hose.

[Ken Borough]

Current Qantas executive? I think you need to talk to someone who was around in the 70s and/or 80s. Qantas has had people subverting industrial action since way before it was entered on the stock exchange (again) and long before the current and previous CEO(s) tenure. I remember management loading aeroplanes in the 70s and into the 80s when the company was under government ownership (and during periods of ALP government too).
Spot on! Salaried and Management staff not inly acted as loaders/porters but worked in the catering centres, cargo sheds, and during one awful strike in the 1980s,flight attendants. Much has been written about this epic strike when the Company went without fuel in Australia and New Zealand for seven weeks. One management captain was even threatened with a 'veterinary' product and car tires were slashed amongst other nefarious activity. :\

[Rebus]

Well, I imagine they will do a water drains check, ( checking for water in the fuel ) and check for 'Gladys' fungus before transferring fuel.
At BA if we had to off load fuel before working in the tanks, the off loaded fuel could only go back in the donor aircraft. So that meant a bowser was out of action until the fuel tank work was done.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

However yes; the current Qantas executive do have a history of subverting strike action by any means legal or dubiously legal and regardless of the goodwill impact it may have on their customers. Goodwill towards staff (and vice versa) began disappearing during the tenure of the previous CEO and has been non-existent in operational fields since the current CEO took office.

I think this is the point. So called corporate leaders are bound by some unspoken law to fvck staff, even if they don’t work for them.

[PPRuNeUser01531]

Good friend of mine was a refueller for 35 years. Met him on tarmac and grateful for his loyal service from Metro to 744. Through refuels,defuels,call-backs,top ups,discrepancies,lost dockets,aircraft changes,u/s gauges,stick-checks,ice melting,late flightplans,volumetric disabling,wing venting,hostie perving etc etc he never waivered. Being directly employed by Shell he was well paid,well trained (at one time by QF) and trusted by LAMES. Sadly this is no longer the case. Since the Oil Industry Award was annuled in 2006 the job of aircraft refueller has become less than attractive and is now nothing more than a low paid ramp job. Hope the striking refuellers gain some benefits for doing a job which involves a lot more than meets the eye.

[Switchbait]

Good friend of mine was a refueller for 35 years. Met him on tarmac and grateful for his loyal service from Metro to 744. Through refuels,defuels,call-backs,top ups,discrepancies,lost dockets,aircraft changes,u/s gauges,stick-checks,ice melting,late flightplans,volumetric disabling,wing venting,hostie perving etc etc he never waivered. Being directly employed by Shell he was well paid,well trained (at one time by QF) and trusted by LAMES. Sadly this is no longer the case. Since the Oil Industry Award was annuled in 2006 the job of aircraft refueller has become less than attractive and is now nothing more than a low paid ramp job. Hope the striking refuellers gain some benefits for doing a job which involves a lot more than meets the eye.

Well said!

A truly competent and friendly refueller is a worthy friend indeed.

[tdracer]

When I was doing flight testing during the 767/CF6-80C2 cert program, defueling (or refueling) the aircraft to get the desired gross weight was a common occurrence.
I do recall that the defueling was a fairly time consuming process (at least compared to refueling) - whenever they were going to defuel a significant amount, we'd find something else to do as it was going to be a long wait.

[MAN777]

I was under the impression that fuel offloaded from an aircraft was classed as contaminated and treated as such ?

[aussieflyboy]

I was under the impression that fuel offloaded from an aircraft was classed as contaminated and treated as such ?

In GA it is. Not so in most airlines.

[Ollie Onion]

I was under the impression that fuel offloaded from an aircraft was classed as contaminated and treated as such ?

There will be rules around the use of the fuel, within my Airline Group you can use the offloaded fuel on other company aircraft but if offloaded fuel came off another airlines aircraft it can’t be used by us.

[DeRated]

I was under the impression that fuel offloaded from an aircraft was classed as contaminated and treated as such ?
I was a Mobil refueller at Essendon/Melbourne airport in 1970 (Pre Tulla).. Any fuel removed was declared contaminated and probably sent to the Mobil refinery at Yarraville.

[mixer_1979]

So if I were to put on an MBA hat for a minute, lets say I strip it down and turn it into a flying gas can how far overweight would I / could I land. Could I even get it that heavy? Consider also the flight to tanker in the fuel? How much does an overweight landing inspection cost, not to mention any issues noted from such, and its impact on feasibility? Bonus points for remembering the source of the quote. And for those who think this is a serious question: finding the quote is an exercise for the reader.

[PiperCameron]

What I really don't get is what this has to do with Qantas?!? Sure, ExxonMobil have the contract to refuel Qantas aircraft at YMML and they sub-contract Rivet to do it (one news crowd was reporting it was 60% of their work)...but what about the other 40% non-Qantas aircraft that Rivet have to refuel also? I serious doubt Qantas would help there.

It seems to me like this feud is really between the TWU and Rivet (possibly ExxonMobil?) higher-ups and has nothing to do with anyone else. Qantas were just an easy target - and they sent in the A380 to "save the day".

[PoppaJo]

I was under the impression that fuel offloaded from an aircraft was classed as contaminated and treated as such ?
Some of my colleagues have told me some interesting tales around fuel swapping between parties in some interesting regions around the Middle East. One operator I worked for in Asia had a fuel contamination event. That was the day that practice ceased forever. You don’t want to be the fall guy when things go wrong, expensive and time consuming fix if you get stuck with contaminated tanks.

[Capn Bloggs]

So if I were to put on an MBA hat for a minute, lets say I strip it down and turn it into a flying gas can how far overweight would I / could I land. Could I even get it that heavy? Consider also the flight to tanker in the fuel? How much does an overweight landing inspection cost, not to mention any issues noted from such, and its impact on feasibility? Bonus points for remembering the source of the quote. And for those who think this is a serious question: finding the quote is an exercise for the reader.
Keh?
​​​​​​​

[PiperCameron]

It seems to me like this feud is really between the TWU and Rivet (possibly ExxonMobil?) higher-ups and has nothing to do with anyone else. Qantas were just an easy target - and they sent in the A380 to "save the day".

AA agrees with me: Qantas uses A380 fresh out of boneyard to mitigate strike – Australian Aviation (https://australianaviation.com.au/2023/03/qantas-uses-a380-fresh-out-of-boneyard-to-mitigate-strike/)Qantas has used its last A380 out of the Victorville desert boneyard to mitigate the effects of a strike by refuellers at Melbourne Airport.

The national carrier flew VH-OQL, fully fuelled, from Sydney to Melbourne (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-oql) on Tuesday to help fill up smaller aircraft. The superjumbo has yet to fly a single commercial flight post-COVID (https://australianaviation.com.au/2023/02/qantas-set-to-welcome-seventh-a380-back-into-service/).

The plan appears to have worked with just five Qantas services out of the Victorian capital cancelled today, and average delays across all airlines at the airport at less than 20 minutes.

It comes after the TWU said on Monday the refuellers would strike for 24 hours (https://australianaviation.com.au/2023/03/qantas-refuellers-to-strike-on-wednesday-in-melbourne/) over what they say is their members being asked to work longer shifts but without better pay and conditions.

The Flying Kangaroo is not directly involved in the talks with third-party supplier Rivet but was likely to be the carrier most affected by any potential action, alongside others such as Australian Air Express and DHL.

[Icarus2001]

Originally Posted by Mixer 1979
So if I were to put on an MBA hat for a minute, lets say I strip it down and turn it into a flying gas can how far overweight would I / could I land. Could I even get it that heavy? Consider also the flight to tanker in the fuel? How much does an overweight landing inspection cost, not to mention any issues noted from such, and its impact on feasibility? Bonus points for remembering the source of the quote. And for those who think this is a serious question: finding the quote is an exercise for the reader.

Keh?
​​​​​​​

You didn’t get it did you Capn A?

[blubak]

News is reporting AJ has sent a fully fuelled 380 to Melbourne to refuel planes from during the refueller pay strike.
I doubt this is even physically possible, but if it was, who’s equipment are they going to use and who is going to do it?
You would have to have some qual to refuel an airliner, Kevin from catering isn’t going to do it.
those who know, is this the biggest BS story of the century from mainstream media?
I’ll bet QF has no plane to plane refuelling chapter in their ops manual!
did some $hit for brains see a 380 landing and assume it was a tanker!
Certainly is possible & not hard to do with the transfer hoses,pressure provided by the donor aircraft's(in this case the fully fuelled a380) normal tank fuel pumps & a licensed engineer on the type can carry out the procedure as part of his authorisation.

[PiperCameron]

Certainly is possible & not hard to do with the transfer hoses,pressure provided by the donor aircraft's(in this case the fully fuelled a380) normal tank fuel pumps & a licensed engineer on the type can carry out the procedure as part of his authorisation.

Not hard to do?? Depending exactly where on airport they were parked, those hoses would need to be rather long and a considerable amount of coordination (and time) required. I mean it's not like you can use just any old hoses and any old scissor-lift to get up there.. so no, it's extremely hard to do (safely).

[Icarus2001]

so no, it's extremely hard to do (safely).

​​​​​​​If you say so.

[IAW]

Not hard to do?? Depending exactly where on airport they were parked, those hoses would need to be rather long and a considerable amount of coordination (and time) required. I mean it's not like you can use just any old scissor-lift to get up there, so no, it's extremely hard to do (safely).

Sure would be with your attitude. It ain't that hard.

​​​​​​With a little bit of planning this would be a doddle for any AMO to manage. It's not rocket science. You may be interested to know it is also possible to recover an aircraft with an inop APU from a remote port by using the bleed air from a second aircraft by use of a long bleed air hose.

[Cloudee]

Keh?
Qué?……

[ACMS]

Cathay has done it before as well.

All legit, fuel can be used in the same company aircraft no problem.

They parked the 380 on a remote stand and refueled 737’s, A320F’s and A330’s.

Easy peezie.

[blubak]

Not hard to do?? Depending exactly where on airport they were parked, those hoses would need to be rather long and a considerable amount of coordination (and time) required. I mean it's not like you can use just any old hoses and any old scissor-lift to get up there.. so no, it's extremely hard to do (safely).
The hoses that are used are approved for fuel transfer,they are not just 'any old hoses'. The guys that perform these tasks know exactly what is required & use the approved equipment.
As far as using 'any old scissor lift' as you seem to suggest you are again way off the mark.
Scissor lifts,thats APPROVED ones,are used for many tasks around the airport every day of the week & used safely.
Maybe think about how apu work on a large aircraft(787,747,a330,a380) is done.....yes,u got it,on an approved scissor lift & with safety always 1st priority.

[C441]

The national carrier flew VH-OQL, fully fuelled, from Sydney to Melbourne (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-oql) on Tuesday to help fill up smaller aircraft. The superjumbo has yet to fly a single commercial flight post-COVID (https://australianaviation.com.au/2023/02/qantas-set-to-welcome-seventh-a380-back-into-service/).

"….fully fuelled…."?
Not unless they landed well over MLW. The 380 will hold about 240T "fully fuelled" thus at an empty weight of roughly 290T, it would have departed Sydney at 530T in that event. At most it would burn 25-30T so would be landing at 500T or about 110T over MLW.

As previously mentioned, they'd have been happy to have 100T on board after landing at MLW.

[PiperCameron]

As far as using 'any old scissor lift' as you seem to suggest you are again way off the mark.
Scissor lifts,thats APPROVED ones,are used for many tasks around the airport every day of the week & used safely.
Maybe think about how apu work on a large aircraft(787,747,a330,a380) is done.....yes,u got it,on an approved scissor lift & with safety always 1st priority.

Working on an apu doesn't require (a) finding a couple of CAO 20.9-compliant scissor lifts just lying around on apron somewhere and (b) hauling special-purpose extra-long 3" heavy-duty fuel transfer hoses across the tarmac and up in the air (they're extremely bloody heavy with fuel in them, you know?).. but, yeah sure, I get it. Safety 1st always. :rolleyes:

Fortunately a few critical people made sure there were no issues with fuel supply, so they didn't need to use the A380 anyway.

[prickly]

Why are refuellers in Australia always so grumpy when they are paid well above the norm.

[blubak]

Working on an apu doesn't require (a) finding a couple of CAO 20.9-compliant scissor lifts just lying around on apron somewhere and (b) hauling special-purpose extra-long 3" heavy-duty fuel transfer hoses across the tarmac and up in the air (they're extremely bloody heavy with fuel in them, you know?).. but, yeah sure, I get it. Safety 1st always. :rolleyes:

Fortunately a few critical people made sure there were no issues with fuel supply, so they didn't need to use the A380 anyway.
CAO 20.9 was repealed on 2 Dec 2021.
Better not follow that 1🙊

[morno]

Working on an apu doesn't require (a) finding a couple of CAO 20.9-compliant scissor lifts just lying around on apron somewhere and (b) hauling special-purpose extra-long 3" heavy-duty fuel transfer hoses across the tarmac and up in the air (they're extremely bloody heavy with fuel in them, you know?).. but, yeah sure, I get it. Safety 1st always. :rolleyes:

Fortunately a few critical people made sure there were no issues with fuel supply, so they didn't need to use the A380 anyway.

Incorrect. It was used

[megle2]

Im hearing the 380 was used, there was briefly a contamination issue but this was found to be just the last of PiperCamerons credibility draining out

[PiperCameron]

CAO 20.9 was repealed on 2 Dec 2021.
Better not follow that 1🙊

Thanks for the tip.. I must have been asleep that day (as usual). Looks like I've got some reading to do.

[PiperCameron]

Incorrect. It was used

You know what they say.. If there's no pics, it didn't happen.

[aussieflyboy]

You know what they say.. If there's no pics, it didn't happen.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/37d0a4ac_5465_4697_adaf_7304edc807bb_53abeb183bbf2ac9c1bb005 347d455449447a6b7.jpeg

[Beer Baron]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x635/5be0beae_0749_40df_8cac_60eafcc8a896_2d9dee4612b9ab9a042a030 07319eb14f007b10c.jpeg

[Capt Fathom]

The defence rests!

[Icarus2001]

Is that the sound of someone returning to play FlightSim?

[aeromech3]

Regards scissor lifts, they are either diesel engine driving hydraulics or battery motor hydraulics, neither of which I would be happy to station under a refueling panel whilst connecting/dis hoses, manual steps, giraffe or passenger yes, hoses walked up or hoisted with ropes.

[Tom Sawyer]

Regards scissor lifts, they are either diesel engine driving hydraulics or battery motor hydraulics, neither of which I would be happy to station under a refueling panel whilst connecting/dis hoses, manual steps, giraffe or passenger yes, hoses walked up or hoisted with ropes.

How do you think the fuel trucks are powered?

[red_dirt]

Regards scissor lifts, they are either diesel engine driving hydraulics or battery motor hydraulics, neither of which I would be happy to station under a refueling panel whilst connecting/dis hoses, manual steps, giraffe or passenger yes, hoses walked up or hoisted with ropes.

lol classic case of trying to argue for the sake of having an argument.

[Icarus2001]

That could be the tag line for PPRUNE.

[aeromech3]

Seams to me that there are at least a couple of posters whom have never been on the platform of a fueler or an Engineering scissor lift.
Fueler: platform at rear, remote from power source, has a remote dead man switching system, has step access at all raised heights, has fire extinguisher on board.
Scissor lift: drive system below platform, short step access only when retracted, emergency stop buttons, limited foot print stability.
There are no doubt more points, but I just wanted to share in brief my own experience and knowledge.

[Tom Sawyer]

Seams to me that there are at least a couple of posters whom have never been on the platform of a fueler or an Engineering scissor lift.
Fueler: platform at rear, remote from power source, has a remote dead man switching system, has step access at all raised heights, has fire extinguisher on board.
Scissor lift: drive system below platform, short step access only when retracted, emergency stop buttons, limited foot print stability.
There are no doubt more points, but I just wanted to share in brief my own experience and knowledge.

As an Engineer I can confirm that I have much experience of both platforms, and I don't think your points make any real differrence. I also work on the A380, and to access (on the ramp) some of the outboard fuel tank access panels, fuel feed pipework and engine etc, manual steps aren't in general feasible due to the height above ground, so MEWPs are used.
Some of your other points;
Drive train position - during a fuel spill, the liquid could go anywhere in the local area. Most MEWPs the motor (diesel or electric) is covered as well. Remember BA 777 in Denver? Fuel truck caught fire when hose ruptured. Re/Defueling is hazardous.
Deadmans handle - irrelevant during this operation. You use the aircraft pumps direct into the transfer hose via the wing refuel point, connected to the other aircraft. Fuel truck pumps/hoses etc not used.
Fire Extinguisher - can go and get a mobile one.
Footprint stability - operate IAW manufacturers instructions as usual.
Step access point when raised - irrelevant. No need to stay at the hose connection point during fuel transfer.

If anything MEWP platforms also have a greater working platform area so allowing easier movement. Also, trying to drag hoses up a mobile steps requires 2 hands, so you are not maintaining 3 points of contact. Lifting the hoses with a MEWP is viable and safer.

[PiperCameron]

CAO 20.9 was repealed on 2 Dec 2021.
Better not follow that 1🙊

Whilst completing my compulsory reading, I thought I'd pop back just to point out it seems CASA don't know that either:
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/590x852/screenshot_2023_03_17_164642_d211ec4a6574dba59139b3d6a6410f6 b0df6f6a8.png
Perhaps you should tell them??

[Capt Fathom]

CASA knows. It's on their website.

A list of what was repealed or cancelled on 2 Dec 2021. (https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-operations-repealed-legislation-and-publications)

[PiperCameron]

CASA knows. It's on their website.

A list of what was repealed or cancelled on 2 Dec 2021. (https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-operations-repealed-legislation-and-publications)

Why then would they reference an old regulation in a new AWB?!? Go look at my post again..

[Foxxster]

That could be the tag line for PPRUNE.
oh no it couldn’t

[Capt Fathom]

The A380 at MEL has done its work. :)

[Icarus2001]

Thanks Foxxster, gave me a laugh.

[PiperCameron]

Looks like the guys from Rivet are at it again, from 5pm tomorrow:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/melbourne-airport-refuellers-plan-second-strike-in-a-month/news-story/b472d346ef51f11be325ca7af260719b

During the last refuellers’ strike on March 8, Qantas positioned an A380 at Tullamarine for the purpose of providing fuel for aircraft, operating to and from the airport.

There were no significant disruptions or delays.

A Qantas spokesman indicated they were prepared to do that again, in order to maintain services for passengers.

He stressed that Qantas had no direct relationship with Rivet and its employees, who had requested a meeting with the airline to discuss their enterprise agreement.

Qantas declined on the basis the airline was not the refuellers’ employer or contractor.
.............................

A statement from ExxonMobil said they were focused on ensuring any industrial action had minimal disruption to airlines and their passengers.

“We are working closely with our (airline) customers and we have put continuity plans in place to supply fuel to Melbourne Airport, as well as getting that fuel into planes,” the statement said.

“Given these proactive arrangements we do not expect any material impact to flights or passenger disruptions.”

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Qantas declined on the basis the airline was not the refuellers’ employer or contractor.
The spokesman further added that while Qantas was fully committed to f*cking it's own employees over, it would still do what it could to assist Rivet in its endeavors to do likewise with theirs.

[morno]

The spokesman further added that while Qantas was fully committed to f*cking it's own employees over, it would still do what it could to assist Rivet in its endeavors to do likewise with theirs.

Just sounds like a sensible business decision to me. I’m sure there’s going to be plenty of other airlines that won’t get their fuel, so I don’t think the few Qantas flights that will get fuel elsewhere won’t make much of a difference to the strike action.

[PiperCameron]

The spokesman further added that while Qantas was fully committed to f*cking it's own employees over, it would still do what it could to assist Rivet in its endeavors to do likewise with theirs.

I suppose that depends on how you read it. If Qantas were "prepared to do that [A380 fuel offloading] again, in order to maintain services for passengers.", doesn't that imply Qantas are thumbing their nose at Rivet also??

"See that A380 tanker over there? We don't need youse guys anyway.. we can do it ourselves if we have to!"

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Forgot to add the [P*SSTAKE][/P*SSTAKE] flags.

[PiperCameron]

Forgot to add the [P*SSTAKE][/P*SSTAKE] flags.

No worries. I can well imagine a Qantas spokesperson might at least THINK that way, even if they don't come right out and say it. Poor little (rich) Alan.. All alone..