QF A380 Diversion
 

CH.9 just reported a QF A380 Sin-Mel diverted to Adl due fuel shortage ! :oh:

Diverting for fuel may be better for ones health than running out..

Just putting it out there...

Is the runway capable of accommodating the beast? I am assuming it must be but just checking.

LMAO Ultegra
 

perfect reponse.

"Burning through fuel"... No pun intended, of course!:rolleyes:

was it a miss calculation? or a engine or 3 with excessive rates of fuel burn?

It is sometmes caused by an affliction called "MANAGEMENT FUEL'. Happens when a (mis)management pilot comes out of the office to catch some vitamin D and tries to show the pleb line pilots the waste of carrying more than flightplan fuel; with of no view to common dogf##k being used.:ugh:

Common practice in anther Qantas group company.

249 passengers?

wow... what a moneymaker.

Only mere mortals miss calculate, not skygods!

Lucky for the pax that it was Qantas. Jetstar would have cancelled the flight and pushed them all onto the next available flight to get a full load.

A new management tactic in the industrial war? Hang the suspicion of blame on pilot error as soon as possible after the event?

Was 16/34 available the time of morning the QF10 was due?
If not, runway 27 can be limiting if wet, on the 380.
Haven't seen the forecast nor notams, so cant judge what may/may not have occurred.
Either way, the combination of factors which led to the diversion perhaps wasn't due to lack of fuel!!!!!

There may well be a lot more of these expensive diversions if Qantas management continue on their present path of mismanagement of employees.

Hasn't flight dispatch been outsourced to asia somewhere?

WIP on 16/34 from midnight until later this morning. 27 for all ARR/DEP.

Dont think we have had a A380 land or takeoff 27 yet. They probaly didn't have the fuel for the excessive holding awaiting them.

Heres another report from ninemsn.


Qantas A380 forced to land in Adelaide

From an allegedly educated person, who obviously can't proof read:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:. First thing taught in high school report writing. And bashed into you in uni lectures.

Is it just me or does it sound rather sinister. Sounds like you will need a lawyer and union rep whenever you make a diversion. :sad:

I'm assuming they meant to say "The Captain will be telling us the reason he believes resulted in the higher than expected fuel flows and our skilled engineers will take this information into consideration when conducting their inspections."

Or is that to much to hope for.

It will be more like, said flight crew will be questioned with the aid of a rubber hose in an effort to determine the cause of the excess fuel burning.... :oh:

Losing money...
 

Well a half full A380 making a fuel diversion............pretty much a losing proposition I'd say.
How can an aircraft of that size on a medium distance run with only half pax need to make a fuel diversion within a couple of hundred miles of destination?? Unbelievable. Surely the winds could not have been that strong....
Not the first time either, didn't one have to do the same thing into Fiji recently?

Surely that can't be the real reason, are we not being told something.

If it is the case, must remember never to fly in the kangaroo again! Never know where you may end up.

Only speculation of course, but perhaps 16/34 closure looks like a reasonable possibility with an earlier arrival time than expected;

DAILY 1400-2000
RWY 16/34 NOT AVBL DUE WIP
TWY KILO NOT AVBL
TWY JULIET W OF TWY ALPHA NOT AVBL
TWY GOLF BTN RWY 16/34 AND TWY ALPHA NOT AVBL
TWY VICTOR SOUTH OF TWY UNIFORM NOT AVBL
TWY FOXTROT BTN RWY 16/34 AND TWY VICTOR NOT AVBL
TWY ECHO BTN TWY FOXTROT AND TWY MIKE NOT AVBL
TWY NOVEMBER NOT AVBL
TWY MIKE NOT AVBL
TWY ALPHA N OF RWY 09/27 NOT AVBL
TWY CHARLIE NOT AVBL
TWY BRAVO NOT AVBL
RWY 09/27 AVBL
REFER METHOD OF WORKING PLAN YMML 2010/1 STAGE 5 WIP RWY 16/34

And 27 would not be an option with the taxiway closures even though given those conditions according to the LPA a MLW up to a little more than 400 t would be possible. If we do use 27, the runway has to be closed for a runway inspection for some reason.
Did this trip on the weekend and decided to delay the takeoff out of SIN to be there about 6.00 and also carried a few tonnes extra in case there was queue to land.
Of course while we taxying out to 02C, someone managed to hit a bird on take-off and so we had to wait 20 mins for a runway inspection, and ended up running late anyway.
The roast duck in the airport canteen would have been nice and tender next morning though!!!