Qatar Airways Runs Out Of Gas On Taxiway?
 

Buddy called me and said that Qater Airways from Doha to Chicago yesterday diverted to DTW and ran out of gas on taxiway in.

Can't find it in the news anywhere. Anyone hear about this?

Looks like they did indeed divert to DTW due to weather in ORD:

Qatar Airways (QR) #725 ? 21-Nov-2015 ? OTHH / DOH - KDTW ? FlightAware

Don't admit it:
Shut down left engine due to low oil pressure, unable to taxi on 1 engine due to slippery taxi ways. Request a tug to gate.
Have contractor pump 50,000 lbs for flight to original destination.
Get clearance, take off.:cool:

They did have an extended hold on taxiway Zulu after landing ILS Z 4L since Lufthansa was on their diversion gate D3.

It sounds like they went around in DTW followed by landing.

Yes, low oil pressure on left engine; flameouts do that!:ok:

Flight track shows close to 15 hrs in air and 7100 nm traveled.

Hang on - this is a thrust driven aircraft, not a wheel driven car! Slippery taxiway = reduced friction co-efficient = easier taxiing on one engine (assuming enough friction on surface to compensate for asymmetrical thrust through tiller steering angle).

"Unable to to taxi on 1 engine due to slippery taxi ways" does not compute.

Your qualifier re friction is a firm grip of the obvious. Of course one can taxi using asymmetric thrust if nose-wheel steering has traction.

So, it is unclear in your post in what way it makes it "easier" taxiing on one engine - how is this so?

Have you experienced winter conditions taxiing a large transport? If not, you should know that in some conditions, the airplane will even "sail" in a strong enough wind...(but not usually in the direction one wants!), and the only way out is to call for the tug, if it can reach you without sliding off the taxiway itself! ;-)

If I had judged the taxiways too slippery I certainly woudn't be shutting down any engines to "save fuel & hours-on-the-engine" and few would.

Back to the original point - did the engine shut down due no fuel?

Also: did they top up the oil, replace the pump and have an engineering dispatch for whatever caused low oil pressure: that is if they just fuelled up and blasted off? Oh, and clean the seats.

Sigh. One can only wish, sometimes, that this forum could revert to being what it says on the label...:ugh:

eppy #6

What a clown, go back to your video games. Better to have people think you're an idiot rather than post something and prove that you are!

Indeed. I once saw a parked, uncrewed B-52 (490,000 lbs as it sat there) moved 20 ft backwards and 10 ft sideways (and turned a bit) by a line squall that combined freezing rain with high winds. There were a lot of guys walking around that one shaking their heads.

A friend departing on a breezy day in YYT in a B-727 pushed back, tractor and tow bar disconnected, and the aircraft gently but surely weathercocked into wind making him a helpless passenger in spite of brakes being set.
Re-connected tractor and returned to the gate.

747 BLOWN OFF RUNWAY 1975
 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...g=2909,3239711

With 100 passengers and 20 crew and 30 kt winds- 747 blew off taxiway and into gully- major damage - minor injuries

This was in anchorage alaska 1975..

eppy certainly has no clue. The famed author/pilot Len Morgan wrote of being blown off the taxiway due ice at JFK while captaining a 747.

What does ice have to do with this incident?

Was the Qatari A/C unable to taxi due to no fuel left? Did they declare fuel emergency whilst still airborne?

curious,
FD.

FLIGHT DETENT. True. We will never know. Loss of face & all that. Like the other lot who scraped ILS aerials & App Lights on T/O. Did we hear anything else ? Nah. Middle East Yanni !

TOWER DOG ; Luv it. Old school Commander's solution. I think I learned from true Leaders like you but these days, Management are after you big time for any truly innovative thinking, "outside" of the box. We need more like you in Management !

Word is the flight landed with more than enough legal and safe fuel. The fuel ran low from the multiple hour wait, 6 hours actually, on the taxiway waiting for a parking Bay.

Nobody knows....
I do know personally one of the pilots and he is top notch, which leads me to discount some of the dumber theories.
There was mention about oil pressure? If they shut down an engine and it was slippery/icy then as mentioned controllability may have been an issue as well as being prohibited by company policy to do a single engine taxi if contaminated.
Prior to 777 I've only flown turboprops and 3 or 4 engine jets, but all were much easier to taxi with an engine shut down

Not sure but the temp was near freezing with gusty winds, light snow, fog and mist reported.

Many operators, perhaps including yours, prohibit single engine taxi with frozen precip falling or on slippery or contaminated taxiways or ramps.

It is. Very, very different. Ask any airline pilot.

Eppy, rally experience notwithstanding, I suggest that you are out of your depth with this one.
Try this with ANY twin that has wing mounted engines. A 737 or an Aztec, no matter what it is.
Park crosswind on a slippery surface. Shut down the engine on the windward side. Now, from a standing start, try to turn at minimum radius (as you may need to do to get into a tight parking spot) downwind.

Let us all know how you get on. Ultimate under steer.....?

PS saying that you can 'slide' an aircraft on the ground in a 'very safe manner' to make a tight turn is utter, utter bollocks. Also, if you have seen 'many others' doing it, there are more mugs out there than I ever imagined. Pilots deliberately doing this are setting themselves up for an excursion into the mud with all the misery of a bent prop or two, or a gear collapse.

Really eppy! This is getting stranger with every post you make.

Again not even sure if this is relevant as we don't even know what happened for sure. My point is I don't find the 777 really taxis well on one engine even in ideal conditions.....it is very heavy airplane and usually requires quite a bit of thrust.
I have had to be pulled with a tug twice this year in a fairly light airplane with both engines running. It obviously has sufficient thrust to break away, but once you get above 35-45% N1 and still aren't rolling you are in danger of hurting someone on the ground, blowing over equipment or knocking out windows etc....
I have seen cars moved 10 meters, GPUs sent tumbling, all sorts of stuff blown around by engines with half the thrust of 777.
So yes if slippery, it is definitely a smart call to use a tug vs trying it alone.

As a side note I remember flying a Saab 340.... Was fine to taxi in all conditions with one shut down, but was always a Rodeo when you shut the engines down on an icy ramp. Even with brakes on and wheels chalked, when the engines were feathered it would lurch forward, and I've seen it move 5 meters before.

Firstly, it has been suggested they were on the ground a long time before all this happened. Anyone have an idea of when they landed versus when the engine was shut down? I have every faith in the professionalism of the guys involved and as such would not be suggesting cover up. The quickest way to get fired here is to try and cover anything up!

SOP (NOP) for single engine taxi is, among other things, not to be done on wet or contaminated taxiways. So they did the right thing.

Finally, Landflap, on this occasion, is talking out of his behind. There is no cover up with regards to the MIA incident. The FAA and NTSB have visited, but the investigation has now been handed over to the AAIB so there will be a report in due course. I appreciate some of us don't like facts to get in the way of a good story!

320Goat, steady on old bean. You might get accused of pointing your backside up-wind too. I suspect Landflap could supply a long-list of cover ups but would be the first to apologise if the report is made public. Let's see eh ?

Gordomac, too true and I have adjusted my statement accordingly. I don't know what's gone on in the past, but my experiences here in the last year and a half have been pretty positive. I would suggest that things are changing for the better here and long may it continue.

Did you try taxing on slippy runway in a big twin with one engine ?

ANY Captain of a large jet transport aircraft who shuts down an engine to save fuel & engine life on when conditions are deemed 'Slippery' on the taxyways & apron really shouldn't be in that seat.

Stick to your VERY light twins, Eppy.

I shouldn't think One would have to ask as all you would have to do is hang about most any Pub near an Airport....and be bored to tears listening to the horror of landing on miles of stationary concrete complete with Lights, Markings, and signs and instrument landing system.:=

http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/z...psc35bnil5.png

For EPPY, perhaps some more reading will enlighten you and about slippery surfaces and single engine taxing in a B777!!!

Ha, even I can do that on a good day. It's the taxying sideways part scaring me, SAS.:ouch:

JJ330: in all fairness, it does not say damp, soaked, or wet. Wheter or not relevant to this case is another story ...

Obviously an American writing english-language FCOMs... :}
back in the naughty corner, Bloggs!

FlightDetent check PM
 

FD could you check for a PM please.
Steve

True, but it does say slippery which is not limited to icy conditions :ok:

Boeing single engine taxi FCOM
 

Boeing might as well add holes in the taxiway to the list. I recall getting stuck with a wheel in a hole after shutting one down in the queue for departure at JFK. Couldn't get her out on one engine and had to restart the other but that took a few minutes.. Wow, how easy it to get ground control mad:}

after many years of experience operating light, medium, and heavy twin engine aircraft on low friction surfaces, I cannot comprehend someone finding it acceptable to operate ANY twin on a slippery surface on one engine...

I have been wondering why they had stuck another engine on the DC10 and the Tristar.