|
QF171/17NOV diverted from NZWN to NZOH
|
|
The only reason this is noteworthy is the bizarre explanation given by the Qantas spokesperson: Usually in these circumstances the aircraft would divert to Palmerston North, however this was not possible due to local weather conditions. Clearly that makes no sense. |
NZCH was Using the cross strip today due strong winds. That would be too short Also. Obviously not enough gas for NZAA so had to get on the ground somewhere. Good job. |
Would it be normal in these circumstances to run the APU, so as to provide some a/c for the cabin?
If not, why not? |
Originally Posted by thefeatheredone
(Post 10619615)
NZCH was Using the cross strip today due strong winds. That would be too short Also. Obviously not enough gas for NZAA so had to get on the ground somewhere. Good job. |
[QUOTE=Slezy9;10619622] Why is it NZCH x-strip to short? You can get an A320 in there nil wind. yeah but not with a flap issue you can’t, Which is why the left NZWN I think the article says. |
[QUOTE=thefeatheredone;10619626]
Originally Posted by Slezy9
(Post 10619622)
Why is it NZCH x-strip to short? You can get an A320 in there nil wind. yeah but not with a flap issue you can’t, Which is why the left NZWN I think the article says. Ok. Fair call. Missed the flap issue. |
Oh, you’re not allowed to run the APU at Qantas! Supposedly fuel is too important these days. The very second she’s on the bay and on shore power, that air goes off. |
Use of APU in this circumstance would be pilots call,not Qantas In order to manage passenger energy,and protect cabin staff,who are facing them,the pilots would have used the APU if available. There will be some good reason why it was not used..Fuel preservation due none available??? |
There are photos on Facebook of the airplane crossing Paraparaumu with gear down and flaps partially out.
Hydraulic issue? Wind at WLG at the time was 340/26G40, just a normal day in other words |
With so much social media around these days & the ease at which news spreads in a negative way often the actual mechanical issue is the least of an Airlines problems, it's the PR dep that have their work cut out for them!
|
Wanting to save fuel is not a valid reason for not running the APU in this scenario, and I'd be very surprised if that's the reason. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realise the cost of negative publicity far outweighs the cost of even a very expensive uplift (I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to get a tanker in from PMR). There must be some other reason such as an inoperative APU, although that seems unlikely on a MEL/WLG.
Maybe if the spin doctors gave a bit more factual information, the rumour mill wouldn't have to fill in the gaps! |
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.