Qantas QF16 diversion to AKL today?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZZO
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas QF16 diversion to AKL today?
Anyone know why QFA16 (LAX-BNE) came to AKL this morning?
Aircraft was VH-OJR and noted on finals to AKL around 20:30 UTC 29 Jan.
Flightstats (Track Flight Status, Airport Delays and other Flight and Airport Information) shows the flight as 169 minutes late getting into BNE for the 27 Jan (US time) LAX departure after being 50 minutes late leaving LAX.
Thanks
S1F.
Aircraft was VH-OJR and noted on finals to AKL around 20:30 UTC 29 Jan.
Flightstats (Track Flight Status, Airport Delays and other Flight and Airport Information) shows the flight as 169 minutes late getting into BNE for the 27 Jan (US time) LAX departure after being 50 minutes late leaving LAX.
Thanks
S1F.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: where the sun shines
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too sure, but I would hazard a guess that the weather in Brisbane was a bit too marginal today for the fuel the aircraft had. Tempo Low Vis and passing heavy showers all day. I suggest it was a refueling stop, to cope with that.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bottom side of up
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The planned flex track on the day probably brought them very close to AKL. If fuel was a problem due to max TOW out of LAX limiting their fuel capability on departure then a pit stop in AKL was more than likely a very prudent decision. Also a possibility was a medical diversion. Just a normal days work.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing in Flifo regarding anything but AKL being a waypoint added to the service.
It could be (not discounting planned route) that holding requirements and/or predicted weather for NOU,NAN and other possibles precluded them
Whatever, I am sure the crew made the decision based on what was best and safest.
Best all
EWL
It could be (not discounting planned route) that holding requirements and/or predicted weather for NOU,NAN and other possibles precluded them
Whatever, I am sure the crew made the decision based on what was best and safest.
Best all
EWL
crew issue. I believe one tech bod went sick. somehow went to AKL picked up some new crew, pax stayed on board and then to BNE arrived 10:35AM. clever as the alternative was 24 hr delay. on 19th i was on 16 and we dropped 1500kgs of jet on the LAX taxiway....5 hr delay. crew were excellent..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZZO
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all, I had considered the aspect of winds and the best FlexTrack on the day, but wondered how many extra track miles that would make including the swing south to AKL and then back up to to BNE.
I see now today that FlightAware (FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > Qantas Airways Limited #16 > 28-Jan-2009 > KLAX-YBBN) is showing the flight as diverted and with a destination of AKL.
I see now today that FlightAware (FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > Qantas Airways Limited #16 > 28-Jan-2009 > KLAX-YBBN) is showing the flight as diverted and with a destination of AKL.
TBM-Legend,
Correct, one techie, must have been a Second Officer, went sick in KLAX and the flight operated three pilot to NZAA, where the tech crew were replaced, and then on to YBBN.
According to this;
Great Circle Mapper
KLAX-NZAA 5652 nms ~ 11+12 (legal three pilot)
KLAX-NZAA-YBBN 6893 nms
&
KLAX-YBBN 6223 nms
So 670 nms the difference, or around an hour and a half extra flying.
Regards,
BH.
Correct, one techie, must have been a Second Officer, went sick in KLAX and the flight operated three pilot to NZAA, where the tech crew were replaced, and then on to YBBN.
According to this;
Great Circle Mapper
KLAX-NZAA 5652 nms ~ 11+12 (legal three pilot)
KLAX-NZAA-YBBN 6893 nms
&
KLAX-YBBN 6223 nms
So 670 nms the difference, or around an hour and a half extra flying.
Regards,
BH.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZZO
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that info Bullethead.
Purely as a matter of interest, would there be any fuel penalty for QF, insofar as the 'new' flight distance was ~670nm longer, assuming the extra fuel required for a second climb to cruising altitude (out of AKL/NZAA), or would they have had enough reserve fuel on board without needing to top-up in AKL?
Purely as a matter of interest, would there be any fuel penalty for QF, insofar as the 'new' flight distance was ~670nm longer, assuming the extra fuel required for a second climb to cruising altitude (out of AKL/NZAA), or would they have had enough reserve fuel on board without needing to top-up in AKL?
Nunc est bibendum
They would have topped up for sure. Even if the gas was loaded for LAX-BNE they still wouldn't have been able to go the extra distance to AKL-BNE without putting on something extra.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South O Equator
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They would have topped up for sure. Even if the gas was loaded for LAX-BNE they still wouldn't have been able to go the extra distance to AKL-BNE without putting on something extra.
the weather in Brisbane was a bit too marginal today for the fuel the aircraft had. Tempo Low Vis and passing heavy showers all day. I suggest it was a refueling stop, to cope with that.
Not too sure, but I would hazard a guess that the weather in Brisbane was a bit too marginal today for the fuel the aircraft had. Tempo Low Vis and passing heavy showers all day. I suggest it was a refueling stop, to cope with that.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may always get in, but the way the Alternate Criteria for Australian ports are written you'd still need to carry alternate fuel, which you may not have had when you left 16hrs earlier.
BTW... I agree... its about time they actually fired up the Low Vis approaches for Aus... do you think it'll be up and running in Melbourne in time for winter, or another absurd year awaits?
BTW... I agree... its about time they actually fired up the Low Vis approaches for Aus... do you think it'll be up and running in Melbourne in time for winter, or another absurd year awaits?
"maybe it's finally time to introduce LWMO in Oz...then you pretty much always get in (unless the winds are too strong)... "
Even if BNE, or any other Australian airport for that matter, was capable of Lo Vis Ops there is still a requirement to carry an alternate and unless the aircraft was refuelled in AKL they certainly wouldn't have been able to do so.
Regards,
BH.
Even if BNE, or any other Australian airport for that matter, was capable of Lo Vis Ops there is still a requirement to carry an alternate and unless the aircraft was refuelled in AKL they certainly wouldn't have been able to do so.
Regards,
BH.
Low Vis Ops...?
All well and good for fog. But not very useful when it's pouring rain and blowing a gale. There's a very good chance you still won't get onto the runway!
All well and good for fog. But not very useful when it's pouring rain and blowing a gale. There's a very good chance you still won't get onto the runway!
