Perhaps I should add that 400t is above MLDW of 391 t anyway.... and actual LDW would have been way below that....

With a notam that implies these sorts of restrictions and it being an international operation there would be a REQUIREMENT to carry fuel for a diversion to a suitable alternate.

An aeroplane that is capable of 14hr sectors and lightly loaded would have been able to hold for a sufficient time and divert to BNE if needed!

Something does not add up.

In the airlines you pretty much never carry more fuel than you need to. Once they would have seen the variable reserve disappearing and the fixed reserve starting to go as well, Adelaide would be the only suitable alternate. They would have planned for Sydney as an alternate but I suspect when they started to get thin on fuel they would have worked out that Adelaide was closer. They may not have known the reason for the increased burn, or if it was going to get worse so I doubt you could call diverting to Adelaide a bad idea.

Not correct:= There is no legal requirement in Australia to carry an alternate. It would be up to the airline's fuel policy whether an alternate is required. Given single runway ops it would be prudent to carry an alternate, but not required.

Assuming no technical issues en route I reckon illusion is close to the mark. Airlines always bang on about how expensive Delta Burn is but never seem to calculate what a diversion is worth when you fly around with bingo day in day out.

Neville you might find there is a company requirement due to it being an Int'l ops.:=

Not so Kaboy, Only sufficient fuel to go to a suitable airfield whilst enroute.

Could be the old warm fuel trick. Everytime i take fuel on in DPS or DRW, i always add extra burn for the warm fuel reason. Seems to work out. They would have been close to flight plan fuel tho I'd suggest.

Qf 380 was in KL on Saturday. Destination Singapore. Weather was fine at both airports.

halas

Cmon boys and girls....2 pages of nothing.

This is called a Tech Stop....who knows....weather, winds, held down ex Sin....

All these scenarios could have caused this diversion/tech stop.

Don't play into the media's frenzied hands.

I'm reasonably sure that Qf don't carry for an Alternate as a matter of course unlike CX, SQ, etc.

So a QF A380 makes a routine tech stop in ADL for whatever reason..... very probably the safest option for whatever happened, and it generates 2 pages of B.S. on Pprune and even more in the Australian media, while a CX A330 has a full on engine fire going into Changi and the reaction/comment is???????

Halas,

The same crew perhaps????:E:E

Flight plan fuel may not be enough for the . . . . . . . . . . . flight?

and the winner is............... not KABOI.

I've seen similar stuff to what A380-800 Driver referred to but I've always had it reconcile in the end - well, within limits anyway. One thing I've noticed is how fast the VFR gets chewed once you start dodging weather, been down more than expected a couple of times now - not down enough to divert but enough to warrant comment.

.... 2 pages of BS on pprune

http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbo...gine-fire.html

In the Australian Press?!!?

No mystery here lads,

Have spoken with crew member involved.

Flight took off with fuel in excess of Flight Plan fuel. (More than legally required by CASA and Qantas Fuel Policy) . Enroute, fuel flow higher than expected, G/S less than expected, and fuel apparently "lost in the system". Perhaps due to inaccurate perf factor etc (who knows). Capt decided that with single runway ops in Melb (rwy 27), reasonably low fuel state because of the above, and fuel continuing to deplete at a rate in excess of flight plan, that a diversion was a wise, safe and approporiate course of action. Fuel leak while not likely, was certainly considered and contingencies set in place.

Well done to the crew I say. Safety of pax comes first and schedule/cost are only a background consideration.

Once again, typical of media to slam Qantas and its crews without any understanding of the real story.

Just out of curiosity and nothing more, are A380's and QF A380's in particular subject to the ALTN FUEL PREDICTION OEB?

Fuel flow 'higher then expected. I doubt it, f/f in these a/c extremely accurate.

G/S 'less than expected'. Happens a lot, that's why you take a little xtra and have contingency.

Fuel 'lost in the system'.

Sounds suspect but we haven't heard the real story I expect.

no, they are not.

Higher fuel flows than normal may be the case but I doubt it,

maybe they just did not onload enough extra fuel and this is what the fairys get for promoting their pathetic policies. Or the Captain was not happy to land with minimum fuel in melbourne, a lot of them like to have 1.5 hours up their sleeve, not 45mins as most are happy with. Still this is a non event I find the quote amusing
The other thing is does anyone know what the weather was like in ML at that time? Maybe unforecast something?
There is so many variables that we dont know so who cares honestly.