QF 737 AKL-SYD Turn Back (Insufficient Gas)
How did a QF 737 end up leaving Akl with insufficient fuel to reach Syd last week?
Apparently it had to turn back after they realised that they were 4T short! |
Or......could it mean that the forcast changed and they needed the extra fuel for a legal requirement?
|
Or fuel transfer system failed and 4t bacame unuseable. :\
|
The Flightplan says 11,000kgs required. So the captain decides....'let's take 7,000kgs and see how we go'.
Yep. That makes sense! |
Aircraft departed with only the straight Burn Off fuel loaded is what happened, and the crew did not pick this up.
I think it was along the lines of the provisional fuel not being updated to a final fuel. |
When we say QF 737, do we mean QF or Jetconnect?
I am guessing QF on that route. |
the crew used the burn off figure, but it wasn't the first time:*
|
QF 44. Big bro. Not the local chaps.....
|
I'm begining to think this is a wind up. Unless there has been a schedule change, it's either a 76 or 74 that does the QF44.
|
I'll check on the Flt No, but it was a -800.
|
The Captain said “Thank Christ they’ve stopped
They make a dreadful din I’ll now complete the exercise And glide this b@stard in” With noses flat against the glass The victims watched in horror And none of them had any doubt They’d all be dead tomorra! :} I shouldn’t be facetious but I get very sceptical incidents such as that mentioned above - if indeed it was the result of a fuel management error and not a mechanical malfunction - have any safety implications. Aside from costing the employer extra DOC’s (obviously less than returning a perfectly serviceable 744 back to Sydney a few days ago), to err is human and we all know there is absolutely zero chance of the crew blindly flying on until the tanks run dry! Woomera |
I know it's hard to belive (for some),
but -it was a 737-800 -it was from AKL-SYD and it was neither a communication problem nor a technical malfunction!! the crew had plenty of ground time (45min delay outbound). take it easy |
It was a human error.
It was not that they only loaded Burnoff. ..and when they discovered the error, they did the correct thing and returned. |
A few years back a certain quadrapuff operator loaded trip fuel on a charter from Darwin to Brissy I think it was. Hard to believe, however, **** happens.
They turned back too I guess. We should remember to look at the figure at the bottom of the column, not at the top, eh. :ok: |
That's if there IS a column, roadrunner...
An old Ansett WA spud C and T told me once: always have a look at the plan to make sure you have enough fuel on board... And of course, trust no-bloody-one, not even (especially!) your own captain! |
Well, let's have a think about this shall we?
It's really totally impossible for a professional crew to depart A for B with burn off fuel only, if all the checks are done correctly! There are numerous checks and double checks to ensure an airplane doesn't run out of fuel between A and B! And the reason for this is that if an airplane does run out of fuel en route, all the poor sods down the back, as well as the crew, are probably going to die! This is not a good thing! This thread has to be wrong, in respect to a professional Capt and First Officer, as well as a Lame, as well as a load controller, as well as a refueler and a few other people, not picking up the lack of "normal fuel" for a flight from A to B. This nonsence, from some uninformed people that "we all make mistakes" and that we are all "human" is just that. Nonsence! If you believe that, go get another job, like selling used cars. Aviation can do without the likes of you! If, however, I am wrong and and the aircraft did depart with burn off fuel only, then all I can say is, God Help Us All, don't ever fly with Qantas!!! |
Awww, c'mon Amos, you've got no sense of adventure!!!
This isn't the first time that a RUMOUR wrt QANTAS and low fuel have been mentioned in the same sentence. Anyone else recall the story doing the rounds, about 10 years ago, of the QF 767(?) that arrived overhead Perth, in the wee hours, to find it totally enveloped in fog. As the story goes, the crew hadn't taken much more than the basic requirements, and so had NOWHERE else to go. After holding for some time - hoping that the fog would start to dissipate - they were reaching the critically low level, and so decided that a controlled ditching seemed to be the only alternative to a Gimli glide........................until "someone" suggested that they plug in all 3 auto pilots and make an auto land :ok: I wonder if the QF pilots on the flight under discussion had jumped through the QF selection hoops that we've been hearing are just soooooooooo wonderful, lately :rolleyes: |
The Gimli Glide and the Air Transat A330 into Lajes in the Azores SURELY must rank as some of the better glides in history! :ok:
Canucks make good glider pilots it seems! :p |
I'm trying to be serious here, Mate!...
but I must admit, M... you break me up with that story that I remember very well! :p |
Amos, read what I said.
The fuel they departed with was NOT the burnoff fuel. They departed with the correct fuel order, except that it was the correct fuel order for the sector they had just completed, Syd-Akl. That was the error and that was the reason it wasn't picked up until after departure. There were reasons for it (there always is), but it was an error nevertheless. Kaptin M, that story was a 747 and like other stories, there was a lot more to it than what you just mentioned. |
OK! Borg, so what were the reasons?...
non application of SOPs? Is this acceptable to you? Just asking! |
Well, like every good RUMOUR, the FACTS will emerge s-l-o-w-l-y - directly in-proportional to the RUMOURS!!
But in the interim...amidst all of the speculation...a lot of pertinent, good discussion will evolve - even if NOT directly related to the topic! So T_C_O_B, the crew suddenly came to the realisation that they had uplifted fuel for a sector that would experience jetstream headwinds, instead of jetstream tailwinds - at altitude - making a severe difference in the TRIP fuel:{ ............at altitude!! Of course, once airborne, the "on ground calcs" NOW become subject to "inflight calculations" - something cunning operators take advantage of regularly! BUT, Winter jetstreams across Oz/N.Z. are notoriously extreme! So one can only ASSUME that this crew must have given it their BEST shot (with their recalculations) before deciding on a SAFE return. Let's NEVER understate/underestimate THAT!! A SAFE return for ALL involved. THAT is what the job of a PROFESSIONAL pilot is ALL about, imo. Accountable - by all means - REGARDLESS of cost! Care to cast any more light on the PH incident, T_C_O_B?? This is the first time that I have heard it was a 74 (and not a 76). Apparently - according to RUMOUR - the pax all had their life jackets on, in readiness for a swim. |
The silence !
Pete Conrad & Yorik Hunt (self proclaimed superior race) are very quiet on this thread:confused: :}
|
Actually, I hadn't been watching the thread ice. But now I am, I can tell you that I have never, and nor has Pete to my knowledge, claimed that we are 'superior beings'. Your own paranoia simply interprets it that way. Dont blame us for your own psychological shortcomings.
Kapt, I don't know much about the 747 / 767 ??? incident, but the fact that YOU can't even describe what the aircraft type is means that YOU really haven't a clue, have YOU? But I have heard that the 737 crew are embarrassed, as you would be. But no one has suggested that in an airline as big as QF that mistakes don't happen. They do. And your point is? All that I can say is that the point that you are trying to prove is not valid simply due to two incidents. If you have the tumerity to critisise me with regards to my campaign against Jetstar, then you turn around and begin your own against QF, then you must wear your own critisism. What little respect I had for you is now gone. |
Haha...that's one.....and the other?:8
|
Yorik,
I have never, and nor has Pete to my knowledge, claimed that we are 'superior beings'. But that would make you.... ARRR Now I understand... Oh, dear, not again.............. :{ Woomera |
Please clue me up then, Yorik :O The "guts" of the Perth event are - I believe - as described. The story doing the rounds at the time, and it came from QF pilots :eek: was that the aircraft that almost ditched due to fog, was a 767.
An event such as that one would have to be common knowledge within QANTAS pilot ranks, and is generally known about outside. If it was a 747 instead of a 767, who gives a flying f:mad:k - the moral of the story is, that in the long run the crew made a GOOD decision! ...my campaign against Jetstar And contrary to your perceived opinion, I am NOT running any "campaign" against QANTAS, nor QF pilots. In actual fact, I am a QF FF, which means that QANTAS is my preferred choice whenever I and my family travel as full fare pax! (And quite frankly, I don't give a rat's @rse whether I have your respect or not, if telling a few basic FACTS upsets you.) |
Banging my head against a brick wall would be easier than attempting to discuss anything with you, Kapt. Shall I cite emergency exits as an example? You just won't understand, despite the facts being under your nose.
Firstly, I'm not aware of the facts of the 'Perth' :ooh: :ooh: incident. Nor are you as far as I can tell. But it sure as hell seems that you are attempting to say something about QF pilots and using this as an example. Don't even bother telling me you aren't, because you aren't that clever. If you think they made a good decision, then why bring it up? It doen't gell with your story? My campaign with Jetstar seems quite well documented on these threads. I'm absolutely certain that the company (read QF GROUP) is well aware of the feelings of 100% of QF pilots with regards to Jetstar. And that is that they are being paid too little for what they are doing, that they are acceptable on one pay level and not another, and that this renders their operation dubious. I will guarantee you that ALL QF mainline pilots feel this way. Whether they feel constrained in saying so, or whether they will take it to the degree that I do is doubtful. But know this - the company is aware of my feelings already - because I reflect the views of many. telling a few basic FACTS Wiz. A very sad post from you. I haven't stated I'm better. Unlike adama who has stated that they in fact ARE! But try this on for size - have any pilots from Jetstar been rejected by QF? If so how many? And for what reason? |
Oh superior race Yorik (Mcgutz),
I like the thought of you "bashing your head against a brick wall" :D :D :D |
My campaign with Jetstar seems quite well documented on these threads.....they are being paid too little for what they are doing, that they are acceptable on one pay level and not another If you think they made a good decision, then why bring it up? That the incident happened was no great secret at the time, so perhaps you should do a little research, and show a bit more interest in your Company, and that way you might then be able to speak with a little bit of knowledge (a very little) on which to base your arguments! Where anything to do with 1989 EVER entered into this discussion, I have no idea - you seem to be clutching at straws, Yousillik Hunt that bear no relativatity to the discussion to date. ...have any pilots from Jetstar been rejected by QF? |
When you say clutching at straws, Kraptin M, you seem to be grabbing at a few yourself. '89 has everything to do with every comment YOU put on this forum. You clearly still have the screaming sh1ts with QF for their role (or lack thereof) in '89. And YOU will go to impossible lengths to put them down, won't you?
that way you might then be able to speak with a little bit of knowledge (a very little) on which to base your arguments! YOU are a sad, sad person. |
You clearly still have the screaming sh1ts with QF for their role (or lack thereof) in '89. And YOU will go to impossible lengths to put them down, won't you? But you make quite a good job of making a fool of yourself............regularly, and unassisted.:p Any more straws you want to grasp at? |
Oh dear. It just goes on, doesn't it.
In every post where you have decided to critisise an airline, it is QF. You clearly have a problem with them. You are clearly bitter and twisted about '89. Don't deny either. 2+2=4. Oh and don't bother replying. You are a very boring animal. Go back to arguing about emergency exits. It suits you better. http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ksm0492l.jpg :E :E :ok: Woomera |
So using the Yousillik Hunt theory of, "And that is that they are being paid too little for what they are doing, that they are acceptable on one pay level and not another, and that this renders their operation dubious.", pilots who are paid more than other pilots are safer :hmm:
On around USD20k per month + bonuses, the Sillik Hunt's formula must put JAS, ANA and JAL mainline pilots almost at the top of the tree, on a world basis. Somewhere after them would come some of the US airline pilots, and then CX A-scalers. You, Yorik, must be an awfully long way down the list, using YOUR philosophy. You appear to have some nagging hang up about 1989 on this thread, Yousillik. I suggest you have the man in the white coat give you a Bex, a cup of tea, and that you have a lie down in that padded room again. At least we know that while you're on the keyboard, the skies are a SAFER place!:ok: |
I have had the Perth story related as well. However as told to me the fog was completely unforecast and the AC being a 763 is a little streched on the NRT-PER route payload/range wise ie with a fullish load you don't have alot of fuel to play with on a 9.5 hr sector, especially when planning for alternates from Perth. Does anyone recall a story in the old crash comics about a Cathay 707 that wound up in Meekertharra due to PH fog back in the 70s ? And of course there is the MMA F28 that flamed out on the landing roll in Fitzroy Crossing in 68.
|
This has to be one of the most childish exchanges that I have witnessed yet on PPRUNE. You are as bad as one another. In fact Krappin M, we are aware of Yorik's capabilities as a stirrer, or Magutzup as some have suggested, but why do you feel it necessary to sink to his level....
For all of our sanity, cut it out. |
amos2,
Impossible? No! This also happened at CX many years ago on a Convair 880 if I remember correctly. I have also had a crew member recommend a burnoff only figure to me at the planning stage on at least three occasions as well. Be careful! |
Icebreaker...? whats there to be superior about? I'd shut your trap if I was you. The person who speaks holier than thou can just as easily have an incident himself one day. You, as a human being have never made a mistake have you?
Kap...you have to take a chill pill dude, seriously, you'll end up vapour locking the way your going. |
The QF incident was Sin-Per 747 classic. unforecast fog at Perth. Proceeded to DPA (essentially a PNR) based on Learmonth which equated to about Top of descent Perth. Returned to Learmonth with not a lot of fuel and ditch headings were definitely discussed. The complicating factor was that the pilot was undergoing command training so under the circumstances could not really proceed to Perth "illegally". The non - precision approach minima at YPLM was significantly infringed. Ask on mahogany row for more details...
|
...and Pete makes two :} hahaha
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.