Back to Squawk list
  • 23

Qantas Responds to “Low Fuel Emergency” on Domestic Flight

Submitted
 
Qantas has issued a statement clarifying an incident on Monday, when one of their B737-800's declared a low fuel emergency on approach into Perth. (aviationsourcenews.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 3
Not to be picky, but just in case a divert was necessary due to weather (probably well briefed so low percentage) or main runway closure due to an aircraft incident ( impossible to foresee) what was the alternate airport and would :10 minutes of extra fuel over their mandatory :30 have gotten them there?
Mikedryden
Mike Dryden 1
RAAF Pearce isn't too far up the road. After that... it's a bit of a hike to the next one.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 2
yup, that one would have worked. I just question the overall fuel load knowing holding was in effect. To base a fuel uplift decision on ATC and no viable real alternate…other than military just to get the plane on the ground, never mind the pax, crew, refuelling etc., all for the sake of carrying an additional :30 of fuel? But that’s me.
Scumhook
Scumhook 1
lol yeah bit of a hike to Adelaide :D


idk if Jandakot could accommodate a 737?

brownbearwolf
brownbearwolf 2
Sounds a bit like the ancient US Carrier that gave pilots a bonus if they landed with minimum fuel, it was in an effort to reduce fuel upload cost. At one time there rule about fuel management was, Ever hear of an Australian Airline Pilot running out of fuel? Back in the 1980's the biggest cost to a local operator, was fuel cost. That now seems to have worsen and many companies have a cut-off point where cost cutting comes into play. But was is better? Landing on the runway with a slosh of fuel in the tanks or short of the runway with no fuel in the tanks?
DracoVolantis
DracoVolantis 1
So, let me get this straight: did the crew declare an "emergency" just to land on time (preventing a 6 minute delay)? Is this even legal, declaring an "emergency" when there is none...?
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 6
Well, if I read the article correctly….they uploaded fuel for 5:40 plus :30 min reserve plus :10 holding. Now at destination with the 5:40 fuel used, the :10 hold fuel used and :30 minutes fuel remaining in the tanks….the hold is extended another 6 which the crew had no fuel for. Now faced with eating into the :30 min reserve to empty, the crew declared a min fuel emergency requiring priority handling….the right decision. To anyone who has looked at fuel gauges showing 6:20 worth of required fuel at departure and now are staring at fuel quantity gauges reading :15 left and :15 right, that’s a fuel load you want to see “on the ground” not airborne with an additional :06 minutes to hold.
Scumhook
Scumhook -1
It's a brave new world.

Maybe the crew identified as they/them and also identified as really wanting to land as the on-board wifi had stopped working and they all had killer insta stories to post cos the flight was lit and like omg totally like wtf and um like I've forgotten where I was going with this, I'm gonna just declare an emergency and request immediate permission to click post and gtfo omfg lol

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss