Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NWA 1822 Fuel Emergency  
User currently offlineOuboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4615 posts, RR: 23
Posted (11 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 11408 times:

Flight 1822 from Mexico City to Detroit, an A-319, diverted to TOL after declaring a fuel emergency. No significant weather in DTW at the time, they just didn't have enough to make it the extra 50 miles. Plane is/was parked at Northwest's Gate 4; jetbridge not connected of course.

Flight should be heading back on to DTW shortly.

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCaptain_777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 295 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 11214 times:

Thanks for sharing. That's interesting to hear. Aviation news always comes here on airliners.net first rather than the news. I love that luxury!

User currently offlineN754pr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 11016 times:

How could they not have enough fuel, was there a VERY strong head wind?

User currently offlineOuboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4615 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 10990 times:

I'm wondering if the major storm over Oklahoma has anything to do with it. Maybe they didn't plan enough for having to fly well around this storm. If I find anything out will pass it on.

User currently offlineOuboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4615 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10865 times:

Just an update from what I've been told...

NWA1822 called TOL approach declaring a fuel emergency.

About 10 minutes prior to arrival, 1822 called the tower and (allegedly) stated that they were unsure whether or not they can make the field. At that time, all airline employees were requested to go outside as observers/witnesses - just incase.

Plane landed with 96 passengers.


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4229 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 10743 times:

FYI- emergency declaration of fual means estimated fuel on arrival is below 20 minutes of burn....


Glad to hear they made it ok. I wonder what happened...usually you have more than enough gas.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineAWA22 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 10686 times:

"Diversion/delay due to enroute weather conditions"

User currently offlineBobs89irocz From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 10608 times:

I as a refueler normally put alittle extra on (i do alot of CRJ's and put about an extra 100 pounds or so on.) with a bigger jet ill give them alittle more. Such as a 747 ill give him about 1000 pounds more then expected. The reason being is most of the time the pilots like it and in cases like this. However maybe they had alot of weight and couldnt fully load the plane to is max fuel limit. Comming from Mexico city im sure it had alot of cargo. Not to mention like a few others have the weather was a facter so they had to do alittle more flying around then expected. Atleast it didnt end up like the AC 767.

User currently offlineChgoflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 10602 times:

I heard that the gauges on the airbus were faultly



Will someone please wake me up in 4 years
User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10401 times:

Bob,
You say you add some extra fuel and I'm sure that they are aware of this up in the office as they read the fuel gauges to do their calculations and things of that nature. But do you not ask them first or at least tell them that you have done it? I think that would make a bit of a change in their weight-even though how insignificant it is-it's still a change.



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10225 times:

I was a bit surprised when I read this (by Ouboy79): At that time, all airline employees were requested to go outside as observers/witnesses - just incase. What is the reasoning behind this? Is it to have witnesses in case of a crash? Or is there another reason behind it?



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineRp tpa From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10188 times:

Um.......maybe so some of them can take pics to show on A.Net? (j/k)

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9982 times:

>>>I as a refueler normally put alittle extra on

Please don't do this....

There's an old fable about the cook throwing an extra pinch of salt in the pot of whatever was cooking, and subsequent passers-by to the kitchen, each unaware of one another, each put their own pinch of salt into the pot. I think this is where the old expression "too many cooks spoil the broth" comes from.

When it comes to a fuel load, it first starts with the airline's dispatcher (here in the US), and s/he considers all the various weather and operational factors for that flight. One of the things that the dispatcher has to "balance" is overall fuel versus payload. Sometimes, it's a tight fit, and to get all your desired payload, you can take X-fuel, and anything over X-fuel will leave the flight overweight for departure. The captains and operations agents know when a flight is "tight" and know NOT to add "a little extra" to prevent an overweight situation. No disrespect to you as a fueler, but situationally, you can't be in a position to know whether a flight is "tight" on weight or not, and your arbitrarily adding extra fuel may create a problem.

When a an overweight situation is created (from over-fueling), one of two things usually happens:

(1) The aircraft will need to be defueled in an amount necessary to bring the aircraft back within max allowable takeoff weight. Defueling is not always as quick or easy as one might think, since it requires empty tank truck space. If the fueler has already left to top-off his/her truck, you may have to wait until they fuel another aircraft, freeing up some space. Airports that have hydrant (underground) systems and just using pumping trucks/carts and might not readily have available tank trucks.

(2) If it's going to take long while to defuel, the other option is to remove payload. If that's freight or mail, it doesn't complain too much, but if you're yanking folks off the aircraft, they usually don't take it very well.

In either case, above, the delay gets attributed to the fueler. I'm sure you don't want your boss on you...

Cheers...  Big grin

[Edited 2003-12-13 17:24:03]

User currently offlineKohflot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9958 times:

Someone beat me to it!  Big grin

User currently offlineJjbiv From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9658 times:

Didn't this happen once before? I seem to remember seeing a lone NW Airbus flight from Mexico parked between gate 6 and the cargo building in the late 90s...

joe


User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2109 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9605 times:

OPNLguy, you are very correct that no re-fueler should play around with the fuel load on his own volition. Fortunately, I don't think he is actually a re-fueler. His profile claims he has no job other than "Watching Airplanes, flying, ridding[sic] motorcycles, working on my car." Undoubtedly he will claim to be in between re-fueling jobs.









An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9556 times:

Back to the original topic, I looked at the sites for Toledo newspapers and TV stations, and didn't see word one of any NWA diversion. Not saying it didn't happen, just that it wasn't reported when I had looked.

Speculation here, but if something did happen, it probably wasn't from something "normal" in the sense of ATC delays (if any) less winds aloft than forecasted (lower tailwinds) or other stuff you'd normally expect. I'm not familiar with A319 performance, but Mexico City is a high-elevation airport than can lower takeoff weights. If this was a "tight" flight as far as fuel/payload, they would have known about this beforehand, and during the flight, fuel checks would have been accomplished. If it ever would have appeared that they would have insuffient fuel to reach DTW, the aircraft would have been landed short (diverted) to someplace like SDF, IND, CVG, DAY, or FWA. The situation never would have been pushed to the point where they were not sure if they could make the airport in TOL.

Continuing speculation, whatever happened (if something did) did so quickly, and a fuel quantity system malfunction would be a likely suspect. Republic has a DC-9 on a FAT-PHX flight back in the 1980s that was short of fuel and went into Luke AFB just west of PHX, and they were on the verge of fuel starvation, IIRC. The crew thought the aircraft had been fueled overnight in FAT, but it hadn't been, and a stuck gauge made them thought that it had been. I think the gauge started working enroute, and clued them in to their true fuel state.

It'll be interesting to see what info, if any, exists, or whether the event even happened....


User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9507 times:

Bobs, if you ever fuel one of my planes like that, it will be the LAST time you fuel an airplane.

That is actually a violation of FARs (in the US) to over ride a captain's command, and most of the time that is to add "x" per side.l

If you are fueling more than the captain asks, I pray you tell them it was a mistake. I don't know of ANY pilots who appreciate fuelers adding "a lil bit more" gas...

-n


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9491 times:

>>>That is actually a violation of FARs (in the US) to over ride a captain's command,

Which FAR is that?


User currently offlineFlyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9084 times:

"Back to the original topic, I looked at the sites for Toledo newspapers and TV stations, and didn't see word one of any NWA diversion. Not saying it didn't happen, just that it wasn't reported when I had looked. "

It definitely happend  Big grin I marshalled out our last flight of the night and saw the emergency vehicles out so I went out to the end of the ramp and was VERY surprised to see a NW A319... The media around here is kind of crappy in the sense of aircraft emergencies. When Grande Air had their crash a while ago, Detroit stations had a chopper hovering over the site before the first news broke here in Toledo. Just the world we live in here in TOL  Sad

Ry


User currently offlineOuboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4615 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8894 times:

One reason why you may not have seen any word in the TOL press about the diversion, is because it happens all the time. TOL is the main diversion airport for NW in regards to DTW bound flights. There's usually a couple times during the year when Northwest will have 7-10 planes parked on the ramps in TOL because DTW is screwed up.

Not to self promote, but if you want to know what is going on at TOL go to flytoledo.com. A number of us from here keep things updated there quite often. Not to mention get a pic of the events up right away. LOL


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8822 times:

To add to the fuel issue:

Thanks, but no thanks.

Dispatch usually does a great job figuring in reserves. If the flight crew doesn't like it, they'll request more. So the amount you are given on your load sheet is the amount you should stick to, period.

If you don't report the overfills (which if you still have a job, it should be pretty obvious that you dont') then you run the risk of screwing up the weight and balance. 300 pounds of Jet-A might not sound like a significant amount, but if it's enough to nudge the aircraft over MGTOW there's a huge problem. Suppose Mr. FAA walked out onto the ramp and dripped the tanks and weighed the airplane (not likely but you really never know)...the airline would be fined and you'd be canned in a heartbeat.

Safety issues aside, tankering unneccessary fuel may not always make good economic sense...maybe not significant but hey, a penny saved is a penny earned, right?


And to the up-and-coming pilots on the board:

If it is humanly possible, WATCH the fuelers on the airplane. Dip the tanks immediately afterwards and do the smell/visual test before you even think about flying. I've requested to be topped off and ended up with only 5 gallons extra per tank (which would have put me below the amount I required to make it to my destination). Also, I caught a fueler heading to my 182 in a Jet-A truck once....couldn't believe it until I saw him stop at the airplane and get out his ladder.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineFourstripe From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8717 times:

Hello All!

As a line attendant at the local airport, we see our fair share of regional airliner fueling as well as every single type of GA and military aircraft under the sun. An explanation on airliner fueling procedures:

Airliner fueling is very straightforward... you put in exactly what is dispatched... no more and no less. The only exception is if the Captain says otherwise. I cannot believe that another fueler would purposely overfuel an aircraft and not report it. True, mistakes happen, but you always report those. Another common problem on some of the older aircraft are the external fuel cut-off switches that don't work all of the time. This can result in a slight overfueling as well (30-60 lbs).

P.S.
If it is humanly possible, WATCH the fuelers on the airplane
I would have to say that 99.9% of us fuelers know what we are doing. You don't have to watch us every step of the way, we will take good care of you and your aircraft. That is our job, and we are extensively trained for it. As to the fueler driving up to a Cessna 182 with a Jet-A truck, he should be fired on the spot. (Not that he could have gotten any fuel into the plane, Cessna fuel caps are smaller than Jet-A nozzles, and the difference would be immediately noticed)  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



“Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.” - Edward Vernon Rickenbacker
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8691 times:

I always double check what load the crew gives me. If it's a plane with goofy refueling procedures(like a westwind) I also double check to make sure I'm following the correct procedure. I'd much rather piss off a pilot by asking him 3 or 4 times if I'm unsure than put the wrong amount in. JBird, that happens more often than you think. I've caught myself doing it once, we don't pump much 100LL and it's force of habit to grab the keys to one of the jet trucks. I did realize what I was doing before I got to the 152, unless there's one out there with a PT-6 conversion  Smile There's a reason that JetA trucks have J-spouts on the overwing nozzles. Of course, making the same basic aircraft with both turbine and reciprocating engines doesn't help our cause.

One thing when fueling larger aircraft, I always wait until the gauge is reading the amount that I want to put in. Because of this, there may be extra fuel in the tank because it takes a second for the valve to close. This is especially true on 727s that have been converted to digital gauges. Those have a habit of 'bouncing' to a high number before settling back down. With most carriers, you can go over by a certain percentage of the prescribed weight. But you can't be under. A couple hundred pounds is ok, a couple thousand is out of the question. The crew must sign for the fuel before they leave. If there is a problem, like a discrepancy between the cockpit and fuel panel on the wing, they have more than enough time to point it out.

Yes, I am a fueler. And I have fueled everything from Cessna 140s to MD-11s and everything in between.



DMI
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8684 times:

Fourstripe,

Welcome to A.net!

I just want to apologize if I came across as disrespectful to line guys at all...wasn't intended, I promise  Smile.

As to the fueler driving up to a Cessna 182 with a Jet-A truck, he should be fired on the spot. (Not that he could have gotten any fuel into the plane, Cessna fuel caps are smaller than Jet-A nozzles, and the difference would be immediately noticed)

I think he was...I never saw him again after that. He was also "mentally challenged" (why they let him fuel aircraft in the first place I'll never know), but I've had more fuel problems from that FBO than anyone else...but they are the only ones on-field  Insane). I just meant an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Sorry!



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
25 Bobs89irocz : Segmentking- I hope i do refuel one of your planes just so you know how or what i do and why. First off, the fuel load doesnt come from the captain. I
26 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>First off, the fuel load doesnt come from the captain. It comes from operations. ...and ops gets it from the dispatch release that the dispatcher s
27 DeltaMD11 : Bob, Sorry if I come across as haggling you in my original post (Reply 9), however I needed to express my concern as to your professed doings. As OPNL
28 Post contains images Avt007 : Wow, there are a lot of sensitive (and insensitive ) people on a.net! This turned into a pilot vs fueler flamewar pretty quickly. I'll add my .02 as a
29 InnocuousFox : "Please don't do this...." Welcome to my respected users list.
30 Groundstop : "but ZW sucks" Hmmm, that's a pretty broad statement. I am responsible for the fuel loads for over 20 ZW flights every evening here in ATL, operating
31 CactusA319 : I worked as an ops agent/loadmaster for a couple of years and I never heard a fueler give a pilot suggestions as to what the actual fuel load should
32 Post contains images Fly727 : Give the guy a break. He never thought that adding a bit more fuel could have the serious implications we pilots know about. Great he learnt that in t
33 InnocuousFox : "Give the guy a break. He never thought..." You could have stopped right there. What would be interesting is if the aircraft in question didn't make i
34 Post contains images N844AA : InnocuousFox, I think the point is that he (hopefully) knows better now. Hell, I know better now -- if I were ever to work as a fueler, I sure as hell
35 Milesrich : The flight crew should have considered IND, DAY, CVG, or even MEM, before going all the way to TOL. This incident reminds me of two fatal accidents. T
36 OPNLguy : >>>The flight crew should have I haven't even seen any published account that the diversion into TOL occurred, let alone what may have caused it. Isn'
37 XFSUgimpLB41X : Way to be an armchair pilot there, Rich. There are reasons they went back to TOL. They would have been in contact with dispatch during the diversion p
38 Post contains images Jjbiv : The diversion did occur. NW's website reflected flt 1822 spending about an hour in TOL on the day in question. In addition, several of the people who
39 Flyinryan99 : "I haven't even seen any published account that the diversion into TOL occurred, let alone what may have caused it. Isn't it a little premature to say
40 OPNLguy : I know the TOL folks had indicated it was there. My point to the guy was that the media (not even the aviation media) had anything on it, and devoid o
41 Bobs89irocz : PLEASE NOTE, since my last post i havent read any other replys.... I dont exactly know how to put into words i do my job but a fellow name Jeremy who
42 Avt007 : Sorry, but while there are some good points there, I still have to disagree with the idea of adding a bit more. How can the dispatchers plan loads if
43 InnocuousFox : To think that you are the only one in the process who could have possibly come up with the idea of compensating for things just reeks of narcisism. Yo
44 OPNLguy : It appears that the guy has pretty much blown everyone here in the forum off, so it's probably pointless to debate the issue with him any further in a
45 Post contains images HERMANSCVR580 : Ok so this becomes a pissing match between armchair pilots and the fuelers. I just wanted to point out a few things that can cause more fuel to be add
46 Kohflot : Maybe it would be good to know where this joker fuels planes..
47 OPNLguy : His profile lists his name, and his employer at ORD... (Not too smart, IMHO)
48 TokyoNarita : Hey Bob, Quite frankly it's none of your business to see if a plane has enough fuel to make it to MEM or JFK. That's Captain's and the dispatcher's jo
49 AWA22 : I worked as a loadmaster for several years at HP and let me just say one thing to this fueler. If your not the dispatcher or the captain you have no a
50 Bobs89irocz : OPLNguy- Like it matters that much, if its a problem then do something about it. TokeyNarita- Im a firm believer that everyone on this board should st
51 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>OPLNguy- Like it matters that much, if its a problem then do something about it. Nah, I don't conduct myself that way.....but someone else could, w
52 TokyoNarita : ********************************** TokeyNarita- Im a firm believer that everyone on this board should state there own opinion thats what this board is
53 Yx717pusher : Not to throw gas on the fire, but there was a problem at my airline with over-fueling by several hundred pounds on almost every flight. This became a
54 Admluvs2fly : W H A T H A P P E N T O T H E F R I G G E N AIRPLANE ?
55 Post contains images Ouboy79 : Still trying to see what exactly transpired. From what it boils down to is this... 1822 more than likely got shifted around slightly due to the major
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA Fuel Emergency @ DFW posted Fri Jul 15 2005 05:11:12 by BaylorAirBear
Delta 737 Fuel Emergency Into LGA posted Fri Nov 19 2004 17:58:07 by NIKV69
SAS ORD-ARN Out Of Fuel, Emergency Landing At HEL posted Wed Oct 15 2003 11:00:05 by FFlyer
NWA DC-10 Emergency Landing? posted Wed Aug 2 2000 08:59:13 by I-96
Video Of A CO 767 Dumping Fuel In An Emergency posted Wed Sep 27 2006 18:46:14 by Concorde001
NWA DC-9 Emergency Landing At MSP posted Tue Dec 20 2005 01:04:03 by CBPhoto
NWA DC9 Emergency Landing At MSP? posted Sun Aug 21 2005 02:04:05 by Goodmanr
NWA 747 Emergency Landing In ORD posted Fri Jul 8 2005 14:42:30 by UAL Bagsmasher
NWA DC-9 Hits Fuel Truck - May 5th Pics posted Tue Jun 7 2005 05:39:16 by Zsx81
NWA 99 Dumps Fuel And Returns To MSP. Why? posted Mon Apr 4 2005 04:22:08 by Jzucker