UA LAX-SYD low fuel diversion to BNE
Thread Starter
UA LAX-SYD low fuel diversion to BNE
Sydney flight runs short on fuel - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Dunno the full story on this one, be it a fuel leak or some one stuffed up their fuel calculations..
Sydney flight runs short on fuel
Posted 22 minutes ago
A United Airlines plane is stranded at Brisbane airport with an engineering defect, after running low on fuel during an international flight to Sydney.
The United Airlines flight from Los Angeles was due to land in Sydney about 8:00am (AEDT), but instead it was redirected to Brisbane Airport.
The ABC understands the aircraft was running out of fuel.
It is believed the plane was examined in Brisbane and was found to have an engineering defect.
The passengers have disembarked and are waiting for another United Airlines plane to arrive in Brisbane from Sydney so it can fly them to Sydney Airport.
United Airlines is yet to return the ABC's calls to explain what happened.
A spokeswoman for Brisbane airport says it could be several hours before the passengers are flown to Sydney.
Posted 22 minutes ago
A United Airlines plane is stranded at Brisbane airport with an engineering defect, after running low on fuel during an international flight to Sydney.
The United Airlines flight from Los Angeles was due to land in Sydney about 8:00am (AEDT), but instead it was redirected to Brisbane Airport.
The ABC understands the aircraft was running out of fuel.
It is believed the plane was examined in Brisbane and was found to have an engineering defect.
The passengers have disembarked and are waiting for another United Airlines plane to arrive in Brisbane from Sydney so it can fly them to Sydney Airport.
United Airlines is yet to return the ABC's calls to explain what happened.
A spokeswoman for Brisbane airport says it could be several hours before the passengers are flown to Sydney.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dunno the full story on this one, be it a fuel leak or some one stuffed up their fuel calculations..
Diversions for fuel Westbound have been happening for years and will no doubt continue to happen in strong winds. One of the reasons QF got the 744ER. A little bit of extra range can some days make all the difference.
Last edited by Water Wings; 16th Jan 2010 at 05:53.
Evertonian
Unbelievable!
The local rag, the HeraldSun is carrying this picture on its website!
Maybe its my eyes, but whilst it isn't a 777, its implying to the uninformed that this was more than a fuel emergency & perhaps collapsed gear.
The local rag, the HeraldSun is carrying this picture on its website!
Maybe its my eyes, but whilst it isn't a 777, its implying to the uninformed that this was more than a fuel emergency & perhaps collapsed gear.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UA diversion
A UA 747 arrived at BNE from SYD at 11.45 local today with the apparent intention of ferrying the pax from the diverted flight on to SYD. This does imply that the diverted aircraft maybe does have a tech fault (or at least a suspected one) or it would, I would have thought, just continue to SYD under its own steam (if it was a crew hours issue I would have imagined UA would just position a crew to BNE - not a whole 747 - though crew hour calculations and ferry costings are, of course, a complex thing and their ops people may have made other calculations).
The UA website shows a 10hr 9min delay on the SYD arrival of UA839 ("Reason: Schedule change due to Ramp Service") and today's (Sat 16 Jan local) SYD-LAX UA840 has a 2hr32m delay on it and today's SYD-SFO UA870 has been cancelled according to the UA website.
My reading of all this is that the ferry aircraft will run a combined SYD/LAX-SFO flight and that one of the intended crews was called in for the ferry flight. Anyone add to this?
The UA website shows a 10hr 9min delay on the SYD arrival of UA839 ("Reason: Schedule change due to Ramp Service") and today's (Sat 16 Jan local) SYD-LAX UA840 has a 2hr32m delay on it and today's SYD-SFO UA870 has been cancelled according to the UA website.
My reading of all this is that the ferry aircraft will run a combined SYD/LAX-SFO flight and that one of the intended crews was called in for the ferry flight. Anyone add to this?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the ragged edge
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be just precautionary. If you dispatch with an inop crossfeed, lose some boost pumps on that tank and don't know how to balance fuel via the dump system (on 100-200), you aren't out of fuel, but you just can't get to it and likely are burning the aircraft out of the envelope. It may become uncontrollable in any of a number of flight regimes (think high crosswind, go-around controllablility with an engine out, etc.) This has happened before to United. When they first bought the Pan Am division, A crew dispatched with an inop crossfeed and wound up landing in Japan with only one engine running at meltdown power because the boys didn't know how to use the dump system to burn things back under control. A Very Close Call. In old boeings you can't transfer fuel between wing tanks (not counting trim, aux and tip tanks); you have to reconfigure source-force-course and burn your way out of the imbalance. This can take a while to correct if a crossfeed is inop, a boost pump konks out and you didn't spot it in time (don't ask how I know.)
Not saying this is what happened. Just that it's one of those things like manual pressurization that can get your tit in a wringer if you're not careful! I was on a Cathay 400 in the back a few years ago and we never made hong kong in headwinds for the same reason. A lot of differential power and rudder went on for a while (smart) but then we dumped into Korea for a very painful bag drag and new bird. Crew looked very sheepish and mumbled that it was a crossfeed valve.
Study those books boys! Let's be careful out there! Old Captain Crunch's pink little azz is in the back now!
Crunch - out
Not saying this is what happened. Just that it's one of those things like manual pressurization that can get your tit in a wringer if you're not careful! I was on a Cathay 400 in the back a few years ago and we never made hong kong in headwinds for the same reason. A lot of differential power and rudder went on for a while (smart) but then we dumped into Korea for a very painful bag drag and new bird. Crew looked very sheepish and mumbled that it was a crossfeed valve.
Study those books boys! Let's be careful out there! Old Captain Crunch's pink little azz is in the back now!
Crunch - out
Last edited by Captain-Crunch; 16th Jan 2010 at 05:20. Reason: added "lose some boost pumps on that tank", and just can't get to it.
I agree with Sonny Hammond... leave them alone... a diversion because of low fuel this time of the year is nothing special... I think a few journos and GA drivers are getting a bit too excited about this one... maybe a non-MEL item when taxying in... who knows...and who cares...
Further I cant believe the ABC wants to talk to UA... if every diversion due to low fuel would get the same attention as this one we wouldn't even know about Haiti, terrorism and Obama...
Further I cant believe the ABC wants to talk to UA... if every diversion due to low fuel would get the same attention as this one we wouldn't even know about Haiti, terrorism and Obama...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UA diversion
Agree but disagree.
There's nothing wrong with a news organisation asking questions about a 'potential' news story. That's their job. If there's nothing in it a half decent PR department could kill it dead in minutes and we'd never hear about it. I am not a journo by the way and am fully aware that there's nothing some of them enjoy more than an aviation 'beat up' - but that's a given in the flying game and the industry should be professional enough to deal with it. Aviation should not be a protected species where questioning by 'outsiders' is not allowed.
There's also nothing wrong with a 'rumour' network having a few posts on the subject - otherwise what is the point of the network? Some people just seem a bit too precious on these issues and whilst this was probably a trivial matter in the great scheme of things it seems just as illogical for non-involved people to say it was definitely only headwinds as it would be for journos or people to state definitely to the contrary. It was an incident - it was raised - it seems to have been answered (below). Job done.
The latest on the ABC site says:
Passengers on board a United Airlines flight that was re-directed to Brisbane because it was low on fuel, are now being flown to Sydney.
The ABC understands the Boeing 747 aircraft from Los Angeles was examined at Brisbane airport and found to have an engineering fault.
It was due to land in Sydney about 8:00am (AEDT), but instead it was redirected to Brisbane Airport.
Another plane was sent to Brisbane to collect the passengers and fly them back to Sydney.
Neil Campbell from the Australian Transport safety Burea says the airline will need to provide a report on the incident within 72 hours.
But he says it does not appear to warrant a formal investigation.
Terrific - end of story. No need for either the Herald Sun's nonsense or for Sonny's over protectiveness. Let's all have a nice day.
There's nothing wrong with a news organisation asking questions about a 'potential' news story. That's their job. If there's nothing in it a half decent PR department could kill it dead in minutes and we'd never hear about it. I am not a journo by the way and am fully aware that there's nothing some of them enjoy more than an aviation 'beat up' - but that's a given in the flying game and the industry should be professional enough to deal with it. Aviation should not be a protected species where questioning by 'outsiders' is not allowed.
There's also nothing wrong with a 'rumour' network having a few posts on the subject - otherwise what is the point of the network? Some people just seem a bit too precious on these issues and whilst this was probably a trivial matter in the great scheme of things it seems just as illogical for non-involved people to say it was definitely only headwinds as it would be for journos or people to state definitely to the contrary. It was an incident - it was raised - it seems to have been answered (below). Job done.
The latest on the ABC site says:
Passengers on board a United Airlines flight that was re-directed to Brisbane because it was low on fuel, are now being flown to Sydney.
The ABC understands the Boeing 747 aircraft from Los Angeles was examined at Brisbane airport and found to have an engineering fault.
It was due to land in Sydney about 8:00am (AEDT), but instead it was redirected to Brisbane Airport.
Another plane was sent to Brisbane to collect the passengers and fly them back to Sydney.
Neil Campbell from the Australian Transport safety Burea says the airline will need to provide a report on the incident within 72 hours.
But he says it does not appear to warrant a formal investigation.
Terrific - end of story. No need for either the Herald Sun's nonsense or for Sonny's over protectiveness. Let's all have a nice day.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: US
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expensive diversion by the sound of it. If it was not a mechanical defect involved, then if the crew were encouraged to be allowed to carry a little extra fuel the diversion may have been unnecessary.
Yes it costs fuel to carry extra fuel. However you only need a diversion, when starting out on minimum fuel and the savings gained on a series of these min fuel flights, are wiped out in an instant, in the case of a diversion.
Yes it costs fuel to carry extra fuel. However you only need a diversion, when starting out on minimum fuel and the savings gained on a series of these min fuel flights, are wiped out in an instant, in the case of a diversion.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
screwball
What's it like living in a world where aircraft don't have Fuel Tank capacity limits, Ramp Weight limits, certified Max Take-off weights, RTOW's.....?
Perhaps the decision to divert into BNE was taken in the interest of safety and at the expense of commercial considerations?
Perhaps the decision to divert into BNE was taken in the interest of safety and at the expense of commercial considerations?
Jesus, what utter utter rubbish this is. And the picture of the UAL Airbus was from the EWR incident, nothing to do with this B747. It could be a technical problem or, most likely, strong headwinds. It's not unusual for us here to see UK bound long hauls divert to AMS and BRU due to strong headwinds enroute.
Terrific - end of story.
Gee, you're easily satisfied Panop!
I liked your post, up until you posted the "final report" from the ABC site. In what detail did that report add anything new? Why didn't the aircraft just tech stop and continue - it had a "maintenance problem" which grounded it. You're not in the slightest curious about whether that "maintenance problem" was in any way related to a fuel diversion??
Evertonian
Still there doyll...it's not in the actual article itself, just on the main page, hence the size.
I saw the pic & thought it was a serious incident. Very misleading & very lazy journalism...IMHO.
I saw the pic & thought it was a serious incident. Very misleading & very lazy journalism...IMHO.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: US
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam Gallagher
"What's it like living in a world where aircraft don't have Fuel Tank capacity limits, Ramp Weight limits, certified Max Take-off weights, RTOW's.....?"
Yes I am quite aware of the above restrictions, thank you very much. Have you ever thought about the possibility of off loading some cargo for e.g. and on loading a bit more fuel? Still might be cheaper than an expensive diversion. Just a thought.
If an outfit is providing a service from A to B they should try and do more to make it to B, reliably.
I fly for a "non profit" aviation department so we are allowed to think a little bit for ourselves once in a while, rather than pen pushing accountants doing the thinking for us.
"What's it like living in a world where aircraft don't have Fuel Tank capacity limits, Ramp Weight limits, certified Max Take-off weights, RTOW's.....?"
Yes I am quite aware of the above restrictions, thank you very much. Have you ever thought about the possibility of off loading some cargo for e.g. and on loading a bit more fuel? Still might be cheaper than an expensive diversion. Just a thought.
If an outfit is providing a service from A to B they should try and do more to make it to B, reliably.
I fly for a "non profit" aviation department so we are allowed to think a little bit for ourselves once in a while, rather than pen pushing accountants doing the thinking for us.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF sticking my head above the parapet here.
I realise that aviation professionals dislike the media--and, having seen the quality of the reporting, can understand why. However, this is an example of United shooting itself in the foot.
Here in Aus, the ABC is certainly not guilty of tabloid journalism or sensationalism. United should have just answered the query with a statement along the lines of "The flight encountered headwinds far more severe than expected and, because of that, used more fuel. At the time of the landing, the plane still had 90 minutes fuel on board, but stopped as a precaution in case it might have run below the legal minimums before reaching Sydney. The maintenance issue that stopped the flight continuing was a problem with the xxxx that was discovered after landing and was unrelated to the fuel consumption".
Had they done that, ABC would have reported factually or, more likely, just spiked the story and not run it at all. Instead, we have the rumour and speculation in the press...and it's continued even on a professional forum like PPRUNE.
Maybe some "media relations" lessons are in order.
Just my two cents worth anyway.
Bobbsy
I realise that aviation professionals dislike the media--and, having seen the quality of the reporting, can understand why. However, this is an example of United shooting itself in the foot.
Here in Aus, the ABC is certainly not guilty of tabloid journalism or sensationalism. United should have just answered the query with a statement along the lines of "The flight encountered headwinds far more severe than expected and, because of that, used more fuel. At the time of the landing, the plane still had 90 minutes fuel on board, but stopped as a precaution in case it might have run below the legal minimums before reaching Sydney. The maintenance issue that stopped the flight continuing was a problem with the xxxx that was discovered after landing and was unrelated to the fuel consumption".
Had they done that, ABC would have reported factually or, more likely, just spiked the story and not run it at all. Instead, we have the rumour and speculation in the press...and it's continued even on a professional forum like PPRUNE.
Maybe some "media relations" lessons are in order.
Just my two cents worth anyway.
Bobbsy
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criminal, absolutely criminal, behavior.
Plane lands critically short of fuel, with known mechanical problem, and no word of crew declaring an emergency!
On the other hand we can deal with reality. The odds are 99.999999% that the plane was dispatched legally. Yes, eventually that plane will have to land as no civilian airliners have air to air refueling. Plane's encounter mechanical issues in flight. Some can be easily fixed, some can't.
So a flight had to divert and had a mechanical issue that couldn't be fixed. I'd guess 'parts not in stock'.
With Scorpio rising in Capricorn, and a descending Venus, anyone could have predicted this would happen. It was just a mattter of time.
Plane lands critically short of fuel, with known mechanical problem, and no word of crew declaring an emergency!
On the other hand we can deal with reality. The odds are 99.999999% that the plane was dispatched legally. Yes, eventually that plane will have to land as no civilian airliners have air to air refueling. Plane's encounter mechanical issues in flight. Some can be easily fixed, some can't.
So a flight had to divert and had a mechanical issue that couldn't be fixed. I'd guess 'parts not in stock'.
With Scorpio rising in Capricorn, and a descending Venus, anyone could have predicted this would happen. It was just a mattter of time.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Screwballthingy,
You obviously have no idea of commercial flying operations and as such I would suggest that you keep you opinions to yourself!
Ask questions by all means but DO NOT judge people doing jobs that you know nothing about!
You obviously have no idea of commercial flying operations and as such I would suggest that you keep you opinions to yourself!
Ask questions by all means but DO NOT judge people doing jobs that you know nothing about!