全部
← Back to Squawk list
Qantas Responds to “Low Fuel Emergency” on Domestic Flight
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) 更多...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
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?
RAAF Pearce isn't too far up the road. After that... it's a bit of a hike to the next one.
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.
lol yeah bit of a hike to Adelaide :D
idk if Jandakot could accommodate a 737?
idk if Jandakot could accommodate a 737?
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?
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...?
