Vueling returns to LGW due to too much fuel
 

Anyone know more about this? Sounds odd.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...35410.html?amp

Weird. Flying to Rome for 2 hours would have had pretty much the same effect regarding burning fuel. And they only realized AFTER take-off?
There has to be more to the story.

Sounds more like they had a tech issue and either wanted some time to troubleshoot or wanted to burn some fuel to avoid an overweight landing.

The author of the tweet referred to in that Independent link went on to post:


I think that tells us all we need to know about the veracity of the report ...

Wouldn't they explode because they'd get too near the sun?

Not explode but the wax bolts would melt. See the Greek AAIB report into the accident involving Icarus' home-made aircrat.

I happened to catch this on FR24....my first thoughts were that it entered holding due to a problem during or immediately after departure. First at FL060 and then further SW at FL080, as reported.

What I also noticed was that there seemed to be a hold on Gatwick departures after it had departed. The next flight out (which I think was RYR to DUB) appeared to hold at the threshold for some minutes before departing. There looked to be a couple of abandoned approaches/holding of arrivals also due to this. None of this may be related, but it might be? (speculation, but maybe a runway inspection was required)

A thought.
Maybe they were fuelled to max and some vented on take off requiring the runway to be inspected. Then reported as a possible fuel leak, hence the return.
Just an idea.

The aircraft suffered an issue with its pressurisation system and had to return to Gatwick but was overweight for landing and therefore required to burn off fuel weight for its return. Quite simple really. Another example of poorly researched histrionic media reporting.

Is the confusion just a phonetic issue; Vueling problem = fuelling problem?

Heard/saw similar at BRU several years ago:

An A320 vacated the runway and asked to stop on the taxiway as the "had a few problems". Shortly after they asked why there were so many fire trucks around them. The answer from ATC was "you said you had a fuel problem"...!!

Or the other infamous phonetics problem on a Gatwick flight many years ago, on an Air Ops Europe TriStar going transatlantic. Passengers had been told that the aircraft would need a refuelling stop but as the Captain made a heavily-accented PA before landing in "err, Gander", there was a near riot in the cabin. Turns out most of the passengers did indeed know about the fuel stop on the way to Orlando but had taken exception to it being in Uganda, which is what they had heard...

No, just a passenger getting the wrong end of the stick.

As my account is likely to be banned shortly this may be my last anecdote to add to the illustrious pages of the once former great PPRUNE. Had a passenger pass out once due to low blood sugar/anxiety etc. Young female other wise healthy person. In Italy. I had the local Italian FO explain in Italian what the issue was but by the time we landed in Rome 15 minutes later the Tower was confirming the ‘heart attack patient’ on board….

Well I see MSN has picked up the same erroneous story.
Wasn't it Pascal that said something like 'In order to grasp the concept of infinity, one need only contemplate the magnitude of human stupidity'?:ugh:

Voltaire, perhaps ?

Nonetheless a superb observation of human incompetence.

I thought the only time you could have too much fuel while in the air is if you're on fire.

Attributed to Ernest K. Gann, but possibly apochryphal.

That makes much more sense than too much fuel and couldn't go high enough :ugh:

Overweight landing is not really that much of an issue in the 320 though. Most of the time it is just a quick check to have the plane released to line. Is this just a case of people preferring to save their own behinds instead of landing earlier?