Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KL736 Without Fuel  
User currently offlineJelle From Netherlands, joined Oct 2006, 37 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12040 times:

Yesterday (April 1, 2007) a KLM MD-11 on an inbound flight from Hato, Curaçao to AMS made a stop in Shannon to refuel (KL736). Apparently the aircraft did not have sufficient fuel to reach Amsterdam. It makes you wonder, besides the fact that it was April fools day and it may have been a tricky joke Big grin, how can one leave with insufficient fuel?

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12042 times:

Perhaps there was heavier head winds en route, resulting in a higher fuel burn than expected.

Or perhaps the airline deemed it more cost effective to add more cargo, offload fuel and make a tech stop (is that the right term?).


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12031 times:

Quoting Jelle (Thread starter):
Apparently the aircraft did not have sufficient fuel to reach Amsterdam.

I doubt this. However, what probably occured is that they didn't have sufficient fuel to reach AMS with the required level of reserves. Therefore, instead of taking any risk, the pilot chose the prudent course of action and landed to refuel.


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11934 times:

Quoting Jelle (Thread starter):
It makes you wonder, besides the fact that it was April fools day and it may have been a tricky joke

I doubt any professional in this field would play a joke like that. A refueller wouldn't deliberately put too little fuel on board forcing a stop to be made, April fools or not, it would not be funny.


User currently offlineBananaBoY From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1581 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11947 times:

Dont pilots have the ability to gain approval to fly to an intermediate airport, then depending on winds, continue to their final destination? Is it called something like "short clearance?"

For example, a JFK-WAW flight would gain clearance to fly to an alternate airport, say GLA, and then, when closer to the alternate, asses fuel, reserves, weather etc before gaining final clearance?

Either way, the KL flight would have been perfectly safe (and legal).

Mark



All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4703 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11918 times:

Quoting BananaBoY (Reply 4):
Dont pilots have the ability to gain approval to fly to an intermediate airport, then depending on winds, continue to their final destination? Is it called something like "short clearance?"

From what I heard this was used a lot in the DC-8 era to CUR etc (my dad was a dispatcher back then)



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently onlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4507 posts, RR: 72
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11918 times:

Are you sure the SNN stop was just for refueling? The aircraft has been on the ground there for over 2 hours. A fuel stop surely shouldn't take that long, unless KLM had to fly in another crew to fly the aircraft to AMS, which is unlikely because the CUR SNN AMS flight is not that long.

User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4703 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11752 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 6):
unless KLM had to fly in another crew to fly the aircraft to AMS, which is unlikely because the CUR SNN AMS flight is not that long.

At 9h30 min sheduled block time I guess they have a heavy crew (3 man/woman up front). From here on pure speculation, no confirmed things:

However, a stop in SNN is right in the 3rd pilots rest period (I think) and thus that pilot is not well rested (according to regulations). First one to take a brake has been back on the flightdeck for some 5 hrs, add one the turnaround and 1.5? for the flight (DUB-AMS is 1.35 block, SNN is longer so it is conservative) you are at a very rough 7.5hrs, and thus might very well run out of hours so a new crew is needed.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineJelle From Netherlands, joined Oct 2006, 37 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11718 times:

JRadier,

That may explain why the aircraft was two hours on the ground. The question still is how can you end up without a sufficient amount of fuel? Simple miscalculation?


User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4703 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11690 times:

Quoting Jelle (Reply 8):

That may explain why the aircraft was two hours on the ground. The question still is how can you end up without a sufficient amount of fuel? Simple miscalculation?

As pointed out earlier, headwinds might have been stronger, they might have planned a re-clearance over the atlantic (as described by Bananaboy), we just don't know



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6812 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11622 times:

Quoting Jelle (Reply 8):
The question still is how can you end up without a sufficient amount of fuel? Simple miscalculation?

Tech diversions like this happen fairly often. MAN gets DL17 (BOM-JFK) maybe a couple of times a month (and it's also been to DUB and SNN afaik). MAN has also had Condor B767s LAS-FRA, a LH744 MEX-FRA and others. Nothing odd about it. The weather can and does impact on long haul flights.

MH might have been banned from UK airspace a few years ago when one of their aircraft landed nearly on fumes and had to be tugged to the gate. For some reason they didn't declare a fuel emergency. This might have been a deliberate policy given concerns raised about other flights as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/339810.stm



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13138 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11571 times:

But wouldn't a MD-11 be able to do that long of a flight normally? Wouldn't the normal problems with winds be on westbound flights as we see with some euro to North American flights to stop in Atlantic Canada airports?

User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11412 times:

Quoting Jelle (Thread starter):
Yesterday (April 1, 2007) a KLM MD-11 on an inbound flight from Hato, Curaçao to AMS made a stop in Shannon to refuel (KL736). Apparently the aircraft did not have sufficient fuel to reach Amsterdam. It makes you wonder, besides the fact that it was April fools day and it may have been a tricky joke , how can one leave with insufficient fuel?

A very sensible question, even for April 1st !

The jetstream has been very active recently. Over the last 24 hours it has swung significantly north due to a stubborn high pressure system sitting to the west of Scotland.

If you click on this link http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=natla_250 and pause the animation at 00Hrs, you will see how the upper air is contorted around that high pressure system.

Forecasts had predicted the jetstream would settle down further south again, but this has not been the case. Based on forecasts which establish NAT tracks, it is quite possible that KL736 had insuffucient upload out of Hato to allow for the change in winds.

Two upsides come from this though; Shannon spotters get to see a KLM MD-11 whilst the UK basks in lovely spring weather with clear skies, light winds and warm temperatures (albeit with poorer air quality) !

Shamu



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11261 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 12):
The jetstream has been very active recently. Over the last 24 hours it has swung significantly north due to a stubborn high pressure system sitting to the west of Scotland.

I was on BA YUL-LHR last Monday (777-200) and was surprised to note on the flight info/moving map display that there was almost no tailwind for the entire trip, only in the very low single or double digits, nothing more than 10 or 15 kts. Usually you encounter tailwinds of 100 kts or often much higher on eastbound North Atlantic routes which frequently results in an early arrival. The jetstream must have been further north or south than usual that night.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10552 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
I was on BA YUL-LHR last Monday (777-200) and was surprised to note on the flight info/moving map display that there was almost no tailwind for the entire trip, only in the very low single or double digits, nothing more than 10 or 15 kts. Usually you encounter tailwinds of 100 kts or often much higher on eastbound North Atlantic routes which frequently results in an early arrival. The jetstream must have been further north or south than usual that night.

I was on CX 271 (HKG-AMS) thursday, and there were also very heavy headwinds. The flight ended up lasting an hour longer than usual. Guess the jetstream above Asia is also very active. But they knew this and we didn't need to refuel. Shouldn't the KLM crew have accounted for the active jetstream?

[Edited 2007-04-03 10:12:34]


L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10457 times:

Quoting Kappel (Reply 14):
Shouldn't the KLM crew have accounted for the active jetstream?

I refer you to my previous post



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10402 times:

So we have winds different than predicted, unusual strength and direction, and a careful pilot who did a proper job. Safety first!

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10169 times:

www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl (dutch only) reports that KLM is investigating the reasons for the diversions and is keeping all options open.


L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineTrent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 572 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9939 times:

How often does this (if ever) happen on ultra-long haul non-stop routes such as from Singapore or Bangkok to New York or LA?

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9151 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9505 times:

Quoting BananaBoY (Reply 4):
Dont pilots have the ability to gain approval to fly to an intermediate airport, then depending on winds, continue to their final destination? Is it called something like "short clearance?"

Yes in flight refile of a flight plan is a common place practice for all ultra long haul operations. Over the course of a 10-20 hr flight a lot can happen enroute and at the planned destination and alternate that would preclude the planning of the aircraft direct.

If for example conjested airways leading to lower than planned levels, higher winds, loads sheet error, destination weather changes, ATC delays, airport closure are all common reasons for tech stops.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4507 posts, RR: 72
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8385 times:

Quoting Kappel (Reply 17):
www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl (dutch only) reports that KLM is investigating the reasons for the diversions and is keeping all options open

I've been saying from the beginning that there is probably more to this than a common technical stop for refueling. The aircraft was on the ground for 2.5 hours at SNN. A fuel stop would have taken less than an hour. I presume that there was no crew change, because in that scenario the aircraft would have been longer in SNN. Also interesting to note that the same aircraft left AMS for YUL later in the day with a long delay although it arrived in AMS well in time (at 11.30am instead of 9am from CUR) for an on time (3.30pm) YUL departure. I presume there were other technical issues.


User currently offlineAirforum From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8164 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 20):
I presume there were other technical issues.

Sounds clear to me. The MD-11 had to be checked for any technical malfunctions. I guess that's one of the first things to do when you're unexpectedly running low on fuel. They probably inspected the plane at SNN, and once again after arrival in Amsterdam.

If you ask me, it's either miscalculation by the crew or a mistake made on the ground while refuelling.



What goes up, must come down. Let's hope the sky never went up.
User currently offlineAirTran717 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 746 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7039 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
I doubt any professional in this field would play a joke like that. A refueller wouldn't deliberately put too little fuel on board forcing a stop to be made, April fools or not, it would not be funny.

Quite right. That fueler would lose his job for such a joke. Then again, you'd think the pilot should catch that with his checklist. It's one of two things: 1) Higher winds resulting in higher fuel burn OR 2) Cargo or bags added at the last minute, also resulting in a higher fuel burn.


User currently offlineAirTran717 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 746 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6912 times:

Quoting Airforum (Reply 21):
If you ask me, it's either miscalculation by the crew or a mistake made on the ground while refuelling.

Not likely. It's been discussed to death in this thread already. Why do people constantly feel the need to question the job of a professional in which they have no experience? If you don't work in the field, you really have no reason to question these issues, unless all you're after is stirring up trouble. An honest question based on curiosity is one thing. Outright disrespect and a lack of education in the area in question is another. There are checks, checks and more checks via the check list and paperwork the fueler must have signed... it's even on the dispatch paperwork the PIC signs. The fuel load is prior knowledge due to this fact if nothing else folks. The jetstream causes havoc in the early Spring and Early Winter. This is a simple issue of head winds. Nothing else. Don't read into this more than there is.

717


User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6375 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Or perhaps the airline deemed it more cost effective to add more cargo, offload fuel and make a tech stop (is that the right term?).

Offloading fuel isn't exactly as easy, nevermind the amount of time it takes compared to pumping fuel in, not to mention all that fuel you just offloaded is now contaminated and has to be destroyed. A lot of cash you just destroyed to take some more cargo, which the yields of said cargo probably wasn't worth the cost or the time to go through this procedure.


25 Kappel : KLM just confirmed in Dutch media it was due to lower than expected flight levels and much heavier headwind than was predicted before the flight.
26 AirTran717 : Quite right. Agreed.
27 AirTran717 : Okay. Debate over. And, for you conspiracy theorists (LOL), the rest of us proved right. Lower flight levels usually mean slower cruise speeds too, l
28 Airbuster : hi all, Flying back from the carribean there are a number of possibilitys.. -the stronger headwinds can be a factor though i never experienced this pr
29 Airforum : I work in the field and yet dare the question the job of a professional. It's not a matter of disrespect and lack of education. Mistakes and violatio
30 AirTran717 : And while I do not disagree... Yes, accidents do happen due to overlooking the obvious. The very first thought that came to mind was the winds and we
31 Airforum : As for the final explanation from the company, do you think KLM's communications department would elaborate on a miscalculation by it's crew? Do you
32 AirTran717 : So, several people gave you an answer that was confirmed by the company... If you choose not to believe it, that's your perogative. But if you are so
33 Airforum : Thank you. I'd rather describe it as having another opinion (which actually is not a very uncommon thing on a forum). At no point I was referring to
34 AirTran717 : There are other things to consider too. It's not just about higher winds or the jetstream or whatever else you can come up with. I'll give you anothe
35 Post contains images Airforum : You've made yourself very clear. I let you know if more details about this diversion show up. Off topic: I LOVE 717s
36 Jwenting : well, as a.nutters they're automatically world authorities in anything to do with aviation, and of course internationally recognised experts on consp
37 AirTran717 : I was just thinking that. LOL Sometimes it IS just as simple as it seems, and NO, not everything is a conspiracy or cover up. Sometimes 2+2 really do
38 Jelle : Well I guess for now we have enough info thanks all!! We will just have to wait to see if KLM provides more information in the future.
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 Increases Fuel-surcharge To 55 €... posted Thu Mar 22 2007 10:41:22 by Beaucaire
AF A320 Without Winglets posted Thu Mar 15 2007 17:59:10 by JJMNGR
Qatar To Use Natural Gas Fuel For Jets posted Thu Mar 15 2007 06:21:25 by QatarA340
Fuel-Tank Safety System Comes Standard On 787 posted Tue Mar 13 2007 19:00:52 by NYC777
Stansted Without LCC's- Another Mirabel? posted Mon Mar 12 2007 18:46:25 by Cambrian
A319 Fuel Dump? (S7 Emergency At BAX) posted Tue Mar 6 2007 13:07:09 by EHHO
Would The 747 Exist Without The C-5A Competition? posted Tue Mar 6 2007 05:33:07 by JAM747
United 924 Last Night - Fuel Leak posted Mon Mar 5 2007 17:14:08 by Rwylie77
Fuel Dumping? posted Wed Feb 28 2007 02:35:34 by ATLFlyer323
Airbus May Extend 35 Hour Work Week-Without Pay! posted Sun Feb 25 2007 22:37:00 by Lumberton