Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KLM From JFK To AMS Puts Down In Manchester  
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8002 times:

Anyone know why?
.
.
.
.
.


[Edited 2004-09-20 16:59:21]

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5632 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7893 times:

Diversions of this sort are most commonly the result of medical emergencies.


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineKl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7838 times:

Landed 2.5 hours late at 10.09 AM, don't know the reason.


20/09 07:35 KL 0642 New York JFK Arrived 10:09
Maatschappij Hal Balie Gate Type 777-200




Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineAA B777-200 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2001, 505 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7772 times:

Yup, probably medical emergency, or "unruly" behaviour of pasengers? Maybe fuel shortage (happened last month with a SFO-AMS 777).....

User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7725 times:

It was a fuel shortage...good call AA.
Was just curious...had some friends on the flight....


User currently offlineKl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7713 times:

2x in one month a fuel shortage? The 772 should easily do a SFO-AMS or in this case the JFK-AMS. Sounds like a big screw-up to me.

KL911



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineTripple7 From Netherlands, joined Aug 1999, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7659 times:

To me it sounds more like less tail-wind than expected, thus refueling somewhere in between. Same happened to an AA flight to ZRH which made a stop in BRU for refueling today

[Edited 2004-09-20 18:15:58]

User currently offlineAA B777-200 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2001, 505 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7622 times:

Well Greg,

That's not good for KLM. Lowsy planning probably.

I had it twice with LH! YVR-FRA and we stopped in AMS. Ofcourse we weren't allowed to get off since I had to travel together with my bags, so went on to FRA, missed my AMS flight, waited 6 hours and then came back to AMS to find my luggage was still in YVR!

Also on SIN-FRA, we ended up diverting to Berlin or Hamburg. Don't remember what airport it was.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4488 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7563 times:

AA,

You plan to forecasts...

As another user mentioned, it was probably a significant discrepancy between forecast/actual winds.

They're not always right, you know  Wink/being sarcastic



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineFJWH From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 968 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7488 times:

Bad!

We don't want to hear this anymore: "G-sus, it f_cking quiet here"! (Passenger in AirTransat A330 above the Azores)

Tjap



FlightS in the next 3 months: MSP, PHX, MEM, NCE, TFS, BCN. All round trips from AMS
User currently offlineWarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7249 times:

I was reading aa AA flight magazine last month and one of the president of AA mentioned one of the way that AA saves money now is by carrying less reserve fuel in the plane as a measure of weight savings, thus saving gas.
It looks like maybe other carriers are copying but it looks like this may not be the best solution to save a buck or two here.



747SP
User currently offlineUltrapig From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 581 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7084 times:

Let's say a heavy uses 1500 gallons per hour ( know pilots think in pounds). Let's say they reduce reserve by twenty minutes or 500 gallons which equals about 4000 pounds or about two tons. How much fuels does the plane save by carrying two fewer tons of fuel. Obviously it takes more fuels to lift the plane but how does one quanitfy it? If carrying two tons less fuel saves half a ton of fuel thats about 125 gallons or let's say about $200. I know it adds up on many trips but surely making an extra stop has to cost many times $200,


Help me with my math and what I assume are guesses!


User currently offlineWhitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7004 times:

Lufthansa, Condor and others have put in at MAN for fuel. These are mostly weather related where aircraft have had to fly off optimum tracks, or haven't been able to get an economical track due to congestion.

Nothing more sinister than that. Medical diversions are not uncommon either.

MAN is a good choice as KL and LH both have plenty of staff and services here should there be a need to quickly bring in another crew due to timeouts.


User currently offlineStealthpilot From India, joined May 2004, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6981 times:


ultrapig well done on the math part but im not going to calculate or verify it  Smile.
Airlines nowadays, especially the big loss making ones, have to trim costs one way or another. (I know its not a fair comparison but easyjet has inbuilt retractable stairs in its newer 737's). If carrying less fuel saves costs then by all means do it, but it's obviously best to avoid embarrassing scenarios of running out of it!!! Dispatchers, pilots and everyone got another factor to keep them on their toes. Calculate better I say.



eP007
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5596 times:

Why not just tanker the fuel. It is not like the plane would be too heavy to get off the runways and make these flights. JFK-AMS for crying out loud. A 757 can do that, let alone a 772ER


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4684 times:

You will have to ask a pilot for confirmation but I know that carrying more fuel in turn burns more fuel, so it is not only a case of economics to have a small reserve but it can also improve the plane's performance. Talking to an airline pilot, he said that they always carry sufficient fuel reserves should it be necessary to divert, and a reserve on top of that. Computers calculate the fuel required for a trip, taking into consideration many factors including load of plane, tail winds etc. It often happens that the tail winds could be stronger or lighter than predicted, or they might even change whilst the aircraft is en route. This being the case it might be that the fuel reserves originally thought sufficient turn out to be insufficient, so an unscheduled refuelling stop is required.

Obviously if a plane landed with more fuel than necessary in its tanks, the accountants/chief pilot for the airline might not be too happy with the pilots' calculations. Perhaps they also feel it is better to allow a few unscheduled refuelling stops rather than have "heavy" planes operating in their fleet and larger fuel bills. With the cost of fuel at an all time high, who can blame them?




MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineMichi From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4402 times:

Hi there,

there is a fuel calculation method used by airlines which is called reclearence or decision point procedure (or even other names for the same procedure).


Normally you have to have certain amounts of fuel on board to be legal:

1. Trip Fuel: A to B
2. Contingency Fuel (5% of trip fuel, or 20min fuel calculated with trip fuel flow, wichever is lower)
3. Alternate Fuel: B to C
4. Final Reserve Fuel: 30min fuel calculated with trip fuel flow
That is the fuel amount which is required by the authorities, otherwise you would fly illegal.
If you have the capacity (limited either by takeoff weight, landing weight, or tank capacity), you can also take some extra fuel. The extra fuel calculation is done by the pilots. They decide how much extra they would like to have based on weather forecasts (fog forecasted, they expect holding) or their experience (30min extra in LHR, due to holding) or many other factors....

That is the planning method which is used for most of the flights. But sometimes there are reasons leading to a reclearence flight plan:

You are planning a flight from A to B. Unfortunately you cannot fuel the amount from above to fly this sector (to much load, to much headwind.....). Then you can plan a flight from A to D. D is an airport a few hundred miles short of your proposed destination B and is called Reclearence Airport. So you make a legal flight plan from A to D with an alternate E.
Now you start your flight and you try to safe fuel where ever you can. There is a preplanned point ~100nm-200nm away from D which is the Reclearence Point X. There you have to look at you remaining fuel. If you saved enough fuel to fly from X to your proposed destination B legally, you can continue (legally: Trip fuel from X-B plus the rest mentioned above). Otherwise you have to land in D.

Sounds complicated in the beginning. But it works in 99% of all reclearence flights that you land in B. That makes it interesting for the airlines, because they save fuel or can carry more load. Even with 1% of the flights landing in between it is still profitable for the operator. If you are on board on one of those flights it is bad indeed. You miss your connections...... and so on.

Any questions? Don't hesitate to ask.

Greetings,
Michael


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

Thanks Michi for the professional's explanation.

Just as a matter of interest do you know if airline managers keep a tab on pilots who seemingly take on board too much or too little fuel for a trip, and use this when it comes to assessment?

In case my question seems confusing, just suppose Pilot X is a first officer on a 772 earmarked for promotion to captain. His chief pilot notices however that in the past few months he made two unscheduled fueling stops. Would this be used against him when it came to considering promotion, or just simply bad luck that the pilot has been in the 1% twice?






MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineMichi From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4117 times:

Hi BCAL,

there are no records like this in my company! It would be too dangerous to have records like that. Because the management could use this tool to "suppress" the pilots. And when they are suppressed they may not perform well or have no chance at all to perform well.
Safety is first all the time! If economical reasons would be used against pilots, they may start to think: An economical flight is most important and safety is only at second place.
Unfortunately many accidents occurred because of that. There is an error class used during accident investigation which is called "organizational error". This would be used to describe the failure of a flight crew that couldn't perform better, because the management didn't give them a chance! So it would not be a flight crew failure but a management failure.

It is good to have a non punitive reporting system to increase safety. Pilots can report safety relevant issues that happened without being prosecuted later. So they can report everything with a "good feeling" and with the goal to make things safer by their own. The safety department will gather all information they received from pilots and make a conclusion to the management to make things safer and better.

Happy Landings,
Michael


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...
KLM 1069 Returns To AMS Due To Icing Prob posted Thu Nov 16 2006 23:08:27 by Cardiffairtaxi
DL From JFK To GRU Question posted Thu Sep 28 2006 21:11:19 by Tonytifao
NW From Boston To Ams Aircraft Change posted Sat Jun 10 2006 19:13:50 by KL565
International Airlines To/from JFK To Europe posted Thu May 11 2006 03:32:30 by Pwm2txlhopper
LH401 From JFK To FRA Is Routing Via LHR posted Mon Feb 13 2006 13:38:02 by Airish
Korean Air Passenger Load Question From JFK To KUL posted Tue Jan 3 2006 09:51:08 by Jumbojet
Flying A Non US Carrier From JFK To LAX posted Mon Jul 18 2005 02:51:51 by Jetblue15
UA Flight From JFK To LGA? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 23:48:41 by Jetblue15
Mystery Flight: KLM 685's Return To AMS On Apr. 8 posted Sun Apr 17 2005 07:02:17 by Longhaulheavy
Delta From JFK To Europe posted Wed Mar 23 2005 19:15:14 by Pe@rson