Qantas Plane Flew on Empty Fuel Tank
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: far east
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas Plane Flew on Empty Fuel Tank
Report in this mornings Melb Age newspaper.
"The crew of a Qantas Boeing 747 shut down one of four engines after a fuel tank ran dry because of a faulty fuel gauge, Australia's national transport safety watchdog said today."
I find it very hard to understand how this sort of thing can happen in this day & age given all the publicity over Gimli etc.
"The crew of a Qantas Boeing 747 shut down one of four engines after a fuel tank ran dry because of a faulty fuel gauge, Australia's national transport safety watchdog said today."
I find it very hard to understand how this sort of thing can happen in this day & age given all the publicity over Gimli etc.
The FQI read zero, and the tank was dry. Seems the FQI was right. 
Happened to me on a flight from Dammam in Saudi to Manila. The short version of the story is that we too had a tank indication problem and were short of time for departure, so got the Saudia engineers to stick the #1 fuel tank.
They got it wrong and gave us the wrong figures, and the #1 engine ran out of fuel about 400 miles out from Manila. Got some cross-feeding happening and got it running again no probs, and landed with plenty of of fuel, but after that we refused to allow anyone other than the company FE to check the fuel state.
They got it wrong and gave us the wrong figures, and the #1 engine ran out of fuel about 400 miles out from Manila. Got some cross-feeding happening and got it running again no probs, and landed with plenty of of fuel, but after that we refused to allow anyone other than the company FE to check the fuel state.
18W. An unplanned visit to the land of Bundy Rum....so be carefulJoin Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on?
Whatever happened to cross checking fuel on board versus fuel required versus fuel ordered versus fuel loaded versus fuel in tanks (Indicated)?
Then fuel on board versus fuel burnoff?
And, in flight fuel management; Cross feeding?
Seems to me one would do a little bit of xfeeding prior to shutting one down?
If the journalist report of CASA statements & actions are correct then I suggest someone needs to have a good look at CASA's capabilities?
Dk
Whatever happened to cross checking fuel on board versus fuel required versus fuel ordered versus fuel loaded versus fuel in tanks (Indicated)?
Then fuel on board versus fuel burnoff?
And, in flight fuel management; Cross feeding?
Seems to me one would do a little bit of xfeeding prior to shutting one down?
If the journalist report of CASA statements & actions are correct then I suggest someone needs to have a good look at CASA's capabilities?
Dk
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: YBBN
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From 256 miles out of Melbourne, 3 engines at Flight Idle would burn less that 4!
Probably could have turned em all off from there!
Probably could have turned em all off from there!
Ways of saving fuel! 
-puts up flame shield and joke indicator showing "Joke"-
From the ATSB web site
On 4 February 2007, the crew of a Boeing Company 747-338, registered VH-EBY, shut down the number-3 engine in flight, due to a fuel related problem.
Approaching the top of descent the crew noticed that the number-3 main fuel tank quantity indicator (FQI) was reading zero and that both fuel boost pump low pressure lights for that tank had illuminated. The crew then shut down the number-3 engine, broadcast a PAN broadcast and continued the flight for an uneventful landing at Melbourne.
An examination of the number-3 main fuel tank after landing, found that it was empty. An over-read malfunction in the number-3 FQI had resulted in the crew believing there was a greater quantity of fuel remaining in the tank than was actually present. The planned quantity of fuel for arrival at Melbourne for the number-3 tank was 2,500 kg. An investigation of the incident conducted by the operator determined that the FQI malfunction was caused by either an electrical malfunction, water contamination or a combination of both.
The FQI fault was rectified and the aircraft returned to service.
The investigation also found that the operators refuelling procedures were not able to accurately verify the base line quantity of fuel on board, or to alert the flight crew or line engineers to the consequences of an erroneous fuel quantity indicator system indication. The investigation reviewed the refuelling procedures for the operators other fleet types to ensure serviceability of those installations. As a result of this occurrence, the operator is implementing a series of safety actions, including amending its refuelling procedures and conducting a risk assessment of its fuel management policies and procedures.
Download complete report [PDF 128 KB]
Approaching the top of descent the crew noticed that the number-3 main fuel tank quantity indicator (FQI) was reading zero and that both fuel boost pump low pressure lights for that tank had illuminated. The crew then shut down the number-3 engine, broadcast a PAN broadcast and continued the flight for an uneventful landing at Melbourne.
An examination of the number-3 main fuel tank after landing, found that it was empty. An over-read malfunction in the number-3 FQI had resulted in the crew believing there was a greater quantity of fuel remaining in the tank than was actually present. The planned quantity of fuel for arrival at Melbourne for the number-3 tank was 2,500 kg. An investigation of the incident conducted by the operator determined that the FQI malfunction was caused by either an electrical malfunction, water contamination or a combination of both.
The FQI fault was rectified and the aircraft returned to service.
The investigation also found that the operators refuelling procedures were not able to accurately verify the base line quantity of fuel on board, or to alert the flight crew or line engineers to the consequences of an erroneous fuel quantity indicator system indication. The investigation reviewed the refuelling procedures for the operators other fleet types to ensure serviceability of those installations. As a result of this occurrence, the operator is implementing a series of safety actions, including amending its refuelling procedures and conducting a risk assessment of its fuel management policies and procedures.
Download complete report [PDF 128 KB]
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Qantas Plane Flew on Empty Fuel Tank
Well that is one way to beat the fuel crisis!
So is there no way of transferring fuel across? Or would there be issues with re-priming the lines after running it dry?
I’m sure it was written into their SOPs, just curious as to what the reasoning is to shutting down the engine?
I’m sure it was written into their SOPs, just curious as to what the reasoning is to shutting down the engine?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: far east
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is there no way of transferring fuel across? Or would there be issues with re-priming the lines after running it dry?
I’m sure it was written into their SOPs, just curious as to what the reasoning is to shutting down the engine?
I’m sure it was written into their SOPs, just curious as to what the reasoning is to shutting down the engine?
Maybe they were concerned there was a fuel leak and followed that checklist which most probably called for the engine to be shutdown. Being close to TOD probably wouldn't be wise to start an investigation with the view to restarting the engine. Since it's a 4 engine aircraft safer to leave things be & sort it out on the ground.
Nunc est bibendum
Given that the tank had previously indicated 'correct weight' at departure, the crew probably suspected a fuel leak of some sort. In addition to that, the fuel indicating in that tank would have dropped rapidly in that tank at some stage giving further cause to suspect fuel leak. In those circumstances I wouldn't be opening a cross feed valve into the engine either. An A330 did that over the Pacific and only just made it to a runway.
In terms of how this could come about, a discrepancy of a couple of ton would be close to permissible given the uplift ex CGK. It's been a while since I signed for the fuel on the 744- and the fuel log book changed post this incident anyway- so I may be quite inaccurate. Going Boeing may be able to provide some information as to whether a discrepancy such as this would have been within tolerances under the old system.
In terms of how this could come about, a discrepancy of a couple of ton would be close to permissible given the uplift ex CGK. It's been a while since I signed for the fuel on the 744- and the fuel log book changed post this incident anyway- so I may be quite inaccurate. Going Boeing may be able to provide some information as to whether a discrepancy such as this would have been within tolerances under the old system.
Nunc est bibendum
There you go folks. Obie has it sussed. No need for QF to re-visit their fuel procedures which were shown by the ATSB to need some fixing. This one is simply a crew error. Why did we even bother doing an investigation? Hang the guilty bastards! 
I'm very interested to hear obie2's theory on how this was cocked up by the crew?
Here's the ATSB Report - nothing in there re a crew cock up that I could see!
Here's the ATSB Report - nothing in there re a crew cock up that I could see!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting point.........
system (FQIS), had the actual quantity of fuel in the main tanks been established after arrival in Jakarta, using a cross check similar to that required in the operator’s FMM procedures prior to revision, it is reasonable to expect that the quantity indicating error for the number-3 tank would have been identified. Therefore, the cause of the malfunction was of lesser importance than the fact that the revisions to the refuelling procedures had significantly reduced the opportunity for the flight crew or engineering personnel to be alerted to, or identify, any malfunction to the FQIS.
system (FQIS), had the actual quantity of fuel in the main tanks been established after arrival in Jakarta, using a cross check similar to that required in the operator’s FMM procedures prior to revision, it is reasonable to expect that the quantity indicating error for the number-3 tank would have been identified. Therefore, the cause of the malfunction was of lesser importance than the fact that the revisions to the refuelling procedures had significantly reduced the opportunity for the flight crew or engineering personnel to be alerted to, or identify, any malfunction to the FQIS.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South O Equator
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obie you have go to be kidding me right?? It must take you 12 hours to get your 310 or whatever it is you fly, airborne with you checking every possibility17 times to make absolutely certain not 3 litres is missing.
By comparison the 3 litres on the 310 is probably a bigger % error.
By comparison the 3 litres on the 310 is probably a bigger % error.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything to do with the 3% check? It can lead you into trouble if previous errors arent accounted for? I am sure Jaba can tell us all how it should work, with all his experience and all