Always pay attention to your fuel status
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know about the 737 for that last question. On the 777 you get a prompt from the EICAS system and turn the pumps off. Scavenge pumps move the last couple of thousand to the mains when they are below 30,000 lb.
Amos....not anti-Airbus at all, except you have to say the 380 is dead ugly. All I was getting at was the remembrance that in 1974 when I first flew the 9, I realized along with many others in ground school that if you didn't get fuel out of the centre with AC pumps, you couldn't get it out. So if the engines flamed due to mismanagement you were dead meat.
As for the 737....it was a long time ago that I didn't fly it but I do recall it being called the slug. I know they were fun to pass in the 727-you could check out the hub caps
Amos....not anti-Airbus at all, except you have to say the 380 is dead ugly. All I was getting at was the remembrance that in 1974 when I first flew the 9, I realized along with many others in ground school that if you didn't get fuel out of the centre with AC pumps, you couldn't get it out. So if the engines flamed due to mismanagement you were dead meat.
As for the 737....it was a long time ago that I didn't fly it but I do recall it being called the slug. I know they were fun to pass in the 727-you could check out the hub caps
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My only comment - due circumstances I now fly in an environment where the F/O's almost NEVER look at the overhead panels, ALWAYS concentrate on the two big shiny screens in front of them - the centre of their universe, in fairness the way they are trained to be. Sad, really.
In a previous life I was taught, and believe, to have a look around at everything every 15 minutes or so - can't hurt can it?
I am sure I probably do it more than I need to and the current F/O's are sitting there wondering... "why?"; well that's their f&*king problem as far as I'm concerned!
My point: as QF has a similar culture to my previous life how is it that, after 2.5+ hours of flight, apparently neither pilot has had a squiz, independently, maybe a few times, to see that everything "looks OK" and at some stage didn't twig that something "wasn't right?"
Standard procedures now so dominant that self preservation and pure common sense have to be considered negatives??
Cheers
PS: my current F/O's all wait for the "master caution" to come on before they have to turn them off (maybe fair enough); any thought of looking at those antiquated things from the past (fuel guages) and anticipating when it MAY happen (awareness??), no chance.
And comparing burn Vs fuel remaining -
- interesting concept!!
In a previous life I was taught, and believe, to have a look around at everything every 15 minutes or so - can't hurt can it?
I am sure I probably do it more than I need to and the current F/O's are sitting there wondering... "why?"; well that's their f&*king problem as far as I'm concerned!
My point: as QF has a similar culture to my previous life how is it that, after 2.5+ hours of flight, apparently neither pilot has had a squiz, independently, maybe a few times, to see that everything "looks OK" and at some stage didn't twig that something "wasn't right?"
Standard procedures now so dominant that self preservation and pure common sense have to be considered negatives??
Cheers
PS: my current F/O's all wait for the "master caution" to come on before they have to turn them off (maybe fair enough); any thought of looking at those antiquated things from the past (fuel guages) and anticipating when it MAY happen (awareness??), no chance.
And comparing burn Vs fuel remaining -
- interesting concept!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good point Galdian....in the "old days" the F/E would calculate the expected off Xfeed time and we'd all hold him to it....mostly very accurate...no special reason why it couldn't be an SOP to note the expected time to empty the centre tank....all that old "airmanship" stuff hasn't gone away....we can bring it back if we want
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Having never operated the baby boeing, I'm probably the last person who can comment on the incident mentioned here.....I do have a question for the drivers however.
Is there any kind of configuration/low pressure warning when the centre tank pumps are off when there is more than a modest amount of fuel remaining?
As has been said, "there but for the grace of god....." so hopefully its a good reminder for all of us on here to be aware of our fuel position.
Is there any kind of configuration/low pressure warning when the centre tank pumps are off when there is more than a modest amount of fuel remaining?
As has been said, "there but for the grace of god....." so hopefully its a good reminder for all of us on here to be aware of our fuel position.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 734 has three gauges plainly visible to both pilots...one could have expected either pilot to check the contents of all three gauges somewhere betweeen Perth and Swan Hill, probably a flight time of 2-3 hours.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the slug" ...and I presume he means the 737.....never heard the term slug in reference to them and would suggest no other 737 driver has either!
You call yourself an airline pilot..????
Oh and what's wrong with rubbishing the airbus...... it's traditional to bag out a heap of sh!t, isn't it??
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aw! Heck...I dunno why I keep putting up with you Cretins!
Anyways, Pacific, the answer to your question is yes.(why would you want to leave them on?)
For what it's worth I have flown the 734 with aux tanks and the pre start fuel call response used to be--- ****kgs ****Pumps On(4/6/8).
Called by the F/O and answered by the Capt (the only way in my opinion!)
And, I have also missed the centre pumps, wasn't picked up by my offsider and only picked it up during the climb doing a panel scan!
Anyways, Pacific, the answer to your question is yes.(why would you want to leave them on?)
For what it's worth I have flown the 734 with aux tanks and the pre start fuel call response used to be--- ****kgs ****Pumps On(4/6/8).
Called by the F/O and answered by the Capt (the only way in my opinion!)
And, I have also missed the centre pumps, wasn't picked up by my offsider and only picked it up during the climb doing a panel scan!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can only wonder what has happened to the "old" philosophy of checking fuel quantity as displayed on tank gauges and compared against FMC quantity. Fuel Log? Not necessary in the modern cockpit? Fools ignore!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems they must have also missed the LOW fuel indicator when the main tanks get below 907kgs per side. The QRH will then suggest you find out why you have a LOW fuel indication.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just with the fuel log thing- a mijig - the 734/8 is a bit different vs other boeings I believe - the fuel log at QF is based on fuel burnt per engine as opposed to fuel remaining in tanks and FMC.
So you hit the little toggle - it shows on either the electro-mechanical gauges ( or screens on the 800 ) fuel used per donk - you then add up and compare to flight plan. So from this point of view - the fuel log isnt going to help you spot whether the correct pumps are on.
The other boeings you compare FMC calculated FUEL totaliser and whatever the other FMC calcd value is and compare to fuel remaining on flight plan. Not sure whether this would help you pick up which tanks are feeding the donks or not either.
So pretty much a careful scan preflight, or climb cruise etc is probably the way it will be picked up.
I too have missed the pumps early, but offsider has picked them up, or picked up in checklist. When I have missed them it is because the Captain has reached across and pressurised the hydraulics - which the F/O usually does and it is also the prompt for the F/O to turn the appropriate fuel pumps on.
I think this was mentioned as a factor in the report.
Capt Basil - the 734 has crappy LCD gauges on Captains side which are poorly illuminated. I dont believe there is a low fuel warning as per the 800.
So you hit the little toggle - it shows on either the electro-mechanical gauges ( or screens on the 800 ) fuel used per donk - you then add up and compare to flight plan. So from this point of view - the fuel log isnt going to help you spot whether the correct pumps are on.
The other boeings you compare FMC calculated FUEL totaliser and whatever the other FMC calcd value is and compare to fuel remaining on flight plan. Not sure whether this would help you pick up which tanks are feeding the donks or not either.
So pretty much a careful scan preflight, or climb cruise etc is probably the way it will be picked up.
I too have missed the pumps early, but offsider has picked them up, or picked up in checklist. When I have missed them it is because the Captain has reached across and pressurised the hydraulics - which the F/O usually does and it is also the prompt for the F/O to turn the appropriate fuel pumps on.
I think this was mentioned as a factor in the report.
Capt Basil - the 734 has crappy LCD gauges on Captains side which are poorly illuminated. I dont believe there is a low fuel warning as per the 800.
Bottums Up
FWIW, in a Douglas Boeing, the EAD will throw up an alert if:
Clever planes Douglas Boeings.
- Fuel other than ballast fuel is in the centre tanks and the centre tank pumps are not selected on, with an engine/s running.
- Fuel pumps for a main tank not selected on and engine/s running.
- Ballast fuel level is less than that entered into the FMS and engine/s running.
Clever planes Douglas Boeings.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Off track, again
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This incident highlight at least a couple of issues.
One is the procedural one of the checklist response - now carried out in accordance to 'area of responsibility'. Back in the good old days (with the 737 at any rate) on the ground the checklist used to read by the fo and responded to by the captain. This meant that the person with the ultimate responsibility for the operation was required to verify the correct state when not preoccupied with flying or taxiing the plane. Not full proof but arguably a better system.
The other issue is mixed fleet flying, when I say that I mean NG and classic which are actually quite different machines, albeit with the switches in more or less the same place. In the case of QF the vast majority of their 737's are now the NG. The NG has lots of nice little features - it tells you if you miss the transition altitude/level (display changes colour), it gives a config warning if the centre tank pumps are left off when they should be on and finally there is a low fuel warning if a main tank fuel quantity drops below 2000 lbs (907 kg). The classic has none of the above features. The problem with the mixed flying of the classic and the NG is that a pilot's mind becomes dumbed down because of all the nice 'backups' on the modern flight deck. The scene is then set for an error to go undetected when flying the less modern machine because the nice backup features are not there and the pilot's mind is less tuned to picking them up.
And now I too have to confess to having made this same error, albeit I detected it shortly after reaching top of climb when I noticed the main tank fuel quantities had reduced whilst and there was lots of fuel sitting in the centre tank - woops - but at least the error was detected and the corrected in a reasonably timely manner. I suspect this error is reasonably common on the classic, but almost always detected before an undesired aircraft state results.
One is the procedural one of the checklist response - now carried out in accordance to 'area of responsibility'. Back in the good old days (with the 737 at any rate) on the ground the checklist used to read by the fo and responded to by the captain. This meant that the person with the ultimate responsibility for the operation was required to verify the correct state when not preoccupied with flying or taxiing the plane. Not full proof but arguably a better system.
The other issue is mixed fleet flying, when I say that I mean NG and classic which are actually quite different machines, albeit with the switches in more or less the same place. In the case of QF the vast majority of their 737's are now the NG. The NG has lots of nice little features - it tells you if you miss the transition altitude/level (display changes colour), it gives a config warning if the centre tank pumps are left off when they should be on and finally there is a low fuel warning if a main tank fuel quantity drops below 2000 lbs (907 kg). The classic has none of the above features. The problem with the mixed flying of the classic and the NG is that a pilot's mind becomes dumbed down because of all the nice 'backups' on the modern flight deck. The scene is then set for an error to go undetected when flying the less modern machine because the nice backup features are not there and the pilot's mind is less tuned to picking them up.
And now I too have to confess to having made this same error, albeit I detected it shortly after reaching top of climb when I noticed the main tank fuel quantities had reduced whilst and there was lots of fuel sitting in the centre tank - woops - but at least the error was detected and the corrected in a reasonably timely manner. I suspect this error is reasonably common on the classic, but almost always detected before an undesired aircraft state results.
B737 incident
Guy's.
I'll stick to the point.
The incident is unfortunate, and I know one of the crew members personally.
He is genuinely a really nice person, and whilst nobody can support his actions I think the company, "Qf ",have made the appropiate response.
To further berate this person on a public forum based on rumors from here is demeaning.
Qf have dealt with this matter internally and that is where it should stay.
I'll stick to the point.
The incident is unfortunate, and I know one of the crew members personally.
He is genuinely a really nice person, and whilst nobody can support his actions I think the company, "Qf ",have made the appropiate response.
To further berate this person on a public forum based on rumors from here is demeaning.
Qf have dealt with this matter internally and that is where it should stay.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane
Age: 48
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Berate ?
Baylover,
In defense of everyone who has posted on this thread, I don't believe that there has been any berating of the person's involved in this incident.
There seems to be a healthy discussion regarding everyone interested in the details and how we can all learn from this. This stuff can happen to any of us, or can nearly happen to any of us. Learning from this info can only make us all think about it.
In defense of everyone who has posted on this thread, I don't believe that there has been any berating of the person's involved in this incident.
There seems to be a healthy discussion regarding everyone interested in the details and how we can all learn from this. This stuff can happen to any of us, or can nearly happen to any of us. Learning from this info can only make us all think about it.
amos;
when we changed over to our current 'normal procedures' our chklst item became "Fuel ____kgs, pumps ON."
I, and it seems many others, got into the habit of saying "9000kgs, 6 pumps ON" I thought it made sense due to the many & confusing centre fuel pump config requirements across the fleet 300?/400/800. However, not long after the procedures being bedded down, they were reviewed - by audit? I can't remember - but someone in an official capacity, via standing order or memo, gave us the official interpretation. I big list of stuff that was happening on line that was not 'exactly' how it was intended to be. On that list was the fuel item response.
For what it's worth I have flown the 734 with aux tanks and the pre start fuel call response used to be--- ****kgs ****Pumps On(4/6/8).
I, and it seems many others, got into the habit of saying "9000kgs, 6 pumps ON" I thought it made sense due to the many & confusing centre fuel pump config requirements across the fleet 300?/400/800. However, not long after the procedures being bedded down, they were reviewed - by audit? I can't remember - but someone in an official capacity, via standing order or memo, gave us the official interpretation. I big list of stuff that was happening on line that was not 'exactly' how it was intended to be. On that list was the fuel item response.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sth of 0
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know Boeing’s philosophy for changing the checklist to be just “__KG/LBS, PUMPS ON.
Considering that when completing a set up, in all likelihood, you will only have fuel in the mains and thus at most only four pumps on.
If it was forgotten to put the centre pumps after the centre fuel load has been added,at a response to the checklist call of FUEL …..” X KG, FOUR PUMPS ON” gives the chance of a correction.
Plain old “…..PUMPS ON” doesn’t really mean much as there will be times when you only need four pumps and then there will be times when you need six.
Considering that when completing a set up, in all likelihood, you will only have fuel in the mains and thus at most only four pumps on.
If it was forgotten to put the centre pumps after the centre fuel load has been added,at a response to the checklist call of FUEL …..” X KG, FOUR PUMPS ON” gives the chance of a correction.
Plain old “…..PUMPS ON” doesn’t really mean much as there will be times when you only need four pumps and then there will be times when you need six.
