Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

A380 arrival fuel Lax

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 3rd Feb 2013, 00:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Liquifaction Island
Age: 64
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A380 arrival fuel Lax

Can anyone advise what is an average arrival fuel in Lax from Sydney

On a nice day with a close alternate like vegas.

about 1 hour?
And is so what is roughly 30min + 30min holding.

eg a 747-400 arrival weight 250t arrives 11t fuel 30min +30min at 1500ft
turnandburn is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2013, 02:17
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 1,091
Received 164 Likes on 36 Posts
Can't tell you a 380 but 747 is typically around 14-15 tonnes. The reason is contingency build-up usually based on a depressurisation a couple of hours out of LAX and either return to PHTO or continue to KLAX at 14,000' and then 10,000'.

Depending on weight I'd assume a 380 is about 10% more.

Alternates for LAX are usually based on KONT rather than KLAS.
DirectAnywhere is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2013, 02:58
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: On the 15th floor
Age: 54
Posts: 379
Received 5 Likes on 2 Posts
Ontario is the normal alternate - 9.6 tonnes including reserves. SFO is about 18 - 19 tonnes. 30 holding is 5t.

Last edited by kellykelpie; 3rd Feb 2013 at 02:59.
kellykelpie is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2013, 10:32
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 357
Received 115 Likes on 46 Posts
A380 doesn't use Vegas as an alternate, using Phoenix, Ontario or San Fran instead.

Fuel figures on arrival are similar to 744 as mentioned above. Contingency fuel can vary greatly depending on the route across the Pacific and distance from PHNL/PHTO and NSTU.
C441 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2013, 12:51
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Folks,
The real answer is "enough".
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2013, 18:51
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 1,178
Received 41 Likes on 28 Posts
I think this one stems from a thread on the Fragrant Harbour forum ("Wide-bodies for CX?") where some posters claim that the A380 is particularly unsuitable for the HKG - North American routes. Quoting the QF SYD-LAX route, it's claimed that because of CP and Mandatory Fuel requirements, with the last suitable ERA being HNL (still a fair way to go), the A380 arrives in LAX with some "50T sloshing around in the tanks"!

Doubtless this is being pushed by the B747-8 camp!
Dora-9 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 10:03
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 54
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
when are they going to try mid-air refuelling for airliners...?
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 11:53
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
---- the A380 arrives in LAX with some "50T sloshing around in the tanks"!
Dora-9,
I suggest that is a function of HKG regulations and the FAA Operations Spec., not the A380. I don't see why the B747-8, burdened by the same regulations, wouldn't produce equally uneconomic landed fuel.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.