How much fuel?

[PAXboy]

The start of the problem is listed in the second paragraph the Flight Global report:

For reasons that could not be determined, the aircraft's internal fuel-quantity indicator had registered the aircraft as a 777-200, which features a smaller centre fuel tank than the -200ER. This caused the aircraft's instruments to under-measure the amount of fuel on board.

So, it was wrong from the start and NO MATTER who did what it was always going to be wrong. No one would imagine that a/c 'thought' it was a different model to what it actually was!
Possibly time for some slack to be given.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Or even worse than the gimli glider...an Air Florida at DCA

[Capt Fathom]

The aircraft involved (9V-SVC) was undamaged during the 16 April 2014 flight.

Is that date a misprint or has Flight Global dug up an old report?

[BAengineer]

Originally Posted by PAXboy

The start of the problem is listed in the second paragraph the Flight Global report:

So, it was wrong from the start and NO MATTER who did what it was always going to be wrong. No one would imagine that a/c 'thought' it was a different model to what it actually was!
Possibly time for some slack to be given.

I don't blame the flt crew, the fault is entirely with the engineering staff. They knew there was a discrepancy, they took appropriate rectification action but failed to do that correctly.

There is no excuse really.

[Black Pudding]

It's very simple........expected calculated uplift in litres and actual calculated uplifted in litres don't even come close.

[haughtney1]

These things do happen from time to time, however, based on the story as published there is no way I would be moving the aircraft until I was satisfied. Engineers do have a habit of wanting you out of their hair.

[WingNut60]

Putting the Gimli Glider aside for a moment, was there not a similar case with an ATR in Italy where the wrong card had been installed and it thought it had a lot more fuel onboard than it actually had.
ATR72 vs ATR42?
Ended up in the Mediterranian with some loss of life, if I recall.

[Bksmithca]

For reasons that could not be determined, the aircraft's internal fuel-quantity indicator had registered the aircraft as a 777-200, which features a smaller centre fuel tank than the -200ER. This caused the aircraft's instruments to under-measure the amount of fuel on board.

So I'm thinking that this fuel issue has existed from day one of this aircrafts life so that means it's been under reporting the fuel load by 41Tons. So how many times have they landed above the allowable maximum landing weight and were these Heavy landing recorded and inspected?

Bk

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Bksmithca

So I'm thinking that this fuel issue has existed from day one of this aircrafts life so that means it's been under reporting the fuel load by 41Tons.
Bk

Not likely. It's common for LRU's to be 'pin selected' for different configurations of the aircraft. On some aircraft, it's literally done with programing pins, but on the newer stuff it's typically done with a software key. All it took was for some engineering work to have been done on the FQIS that was not done correctly.
Hard to believe that this aircraft had been flying around for years with a 41 ton weight discrepancy that was never noticed...

[rationalfunctions]

Official report here: https://www.mot.gov.sg/docs/default-...nal-report.pdf

Few interesting actions and recommendations, including that the aircraft manufacturer upgraded subsequent versions of the FQPU to be able to detect and prevent incorrect program pins configuration.

[JammedStab]

Originally Posted by Pugilistic Animus

Or even worse than the gimli glider...an Air Florida at DCA

Or.....MK Airlines in Halifax.....not enough thrust used for the runway length based on its actual weight.

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by WingNut60

Putting the Gimli Glider aside for a moment, was there not a similar case with an ATR in Italy where the wrong card had been installed and it thought it had a lot more fuel onboard than it actually had.
ATR72 vs ATR42?
Ended up in the Mediterranian with some loss of life, if I recall.

In short, yes.
Tootle pip!!

[Super VC-10]

Originally Posted by WingNut60

Putting the Gimli Glider aside for a moment, was there not a similar case with an ATR in Italy where the wrong card had been installed and it thought it had a lot more fuel onboard than it actually had.
ATR72 vs ATR42?
Ended up in the Mediterranian with some loss of life, if I recall.

Tuninter Flight 1153, 6 August 2005, 16 of 39 on board killed.

[nonsense]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

The aircraft involved (9V-SVC) was undamaged during the 16 April 2014 flight.

Is that date a misprint or has Flight Global dug up an old report?

The report has only just been published, 12/6/2018.

[MaximumPete]

I like to keep things simple. Just one question:- What happened on previous flight?

MP

[CargoOne]

Am I the only one who suspects the weight/performance/envelope information was omitted for a reason in this report?

[747-8driver]

Originally Posted by MaximumPete

I like to keep things simple. Just one question:- What happened on previous flight?
MP

What would you expect to happen when they departed with hardly any or no fuel in the CWT?

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by Sailvi767

I thought every airline crew had to perform a fuel verification checking the uplift against the arrival fuel. It’s a basic safety precaution.

None of the airlines I've worked for have any provision for this. You'd have to dig into the ACARS to find the arrival fuel (which could well be meaningless if the plane's been on the ground for a while), and go out to the wing to speak to the fueller. We don't get fuel slips.

[FullWings]

As a 777 pilot, that’s really interesting. My experience of the fuel quantity system is that it is very accurate 99.9% of the time but every now-and-then gets confused. I remember once the indicated fuel quantity dropping quite rapidly in one wing, to the point that we thought an engine shutdown might be on the cards but as there was no roll tendency with the AP out and no visible leaking, we had a further think about it and while we were doing that, the fuel came back again!

"It was fortuitous that the aircraft had been fuelled with much more fuel than it needed," says the inquiry.

I’m afraid I disagree with that one. Being >40t overweight for your calculated performance is a big deal in these days of multiple derates, improved climb and CofG adjustments. You could hit something AEO, let alone OEI, not to mention being on the wrong side of the drag curve the whole flight.

From my reading of it, the problem was with the centre tank programmed capacity, so once the CT fuel was down to what the aeroplane thought was its nominal capacity (it’s used first) it’s likely that the total fuel indication would have been correct. There would still have been a large discrepancy between that and the totaliser, so definitely still an issue that might have caused a precautionary landing but not a fuel exhaustion scenario.

[Check Airman]

Does the 777 have a CHECK GW message on the FMS to warn of potentially incorrect weight entries? I'm not 100% sure how this failure mode would play out on an Airbus, but I'd imagine that the flight control computers would have sensed something before the fuel tank sensors snapped back to their senses.