QF refuelling at Melbourne from an A380????
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..?
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..?
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.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following 7 users liked this post by 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.
A truly competent and friendly refueller is a worthy friend indeed.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bendigo, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: houston
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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 on Tuesday to help fill up smaller aircraft. The superjumbo has yet to fly a single commercial flight post-COVID.
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 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.
The national carrier flew VH-OQL, fully fuelled, from Sydney to Melbourne on Tuesday to help fill up smaller aircraft. The superjumbo has yet to fly a single commercial flight post-COVID.
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 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.
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?
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?