Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
British Airways A321 Low Fuel Divert To LGW  
User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13751 times:

A BA 321 which was G-EUXH diverted here to LGW this evening after a fuel diversion, the aircraft was coming in from BCN and was heading to LHR.


3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13722 times:

That must have been a fuel leak. How can you not carry enough fuel for such a short trip?

It will be interesting to hear the full story.


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13704 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Given the range of an A321 (USAirways flies them PHL-SFO @ 4045 km ) isn't this a bit unusual?

User currently onlinemarky From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13580 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 1):
That must have been a fuel leak

I don't think so. Both LGW and LHR have suffered delays today due to low temperatures and runways requiring to be de-iced. A lot of aircraft had to hold for some time, and several easyJets bound for Gatwick diverted to Stansted.

A non-story as usual


User currently offlineSumma767 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2520 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13550 times:

I wonder if it might have had to do with the strong headwinds that northbound flights have been facing today.

I just got back on a flight that should have taken 3 h 45 an had 45 mins on top due to 80 mph headwinds.

This, perhaps in combination with an uncertain hold might have contributed to the A321 diversion to LGW.


User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17004 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13441 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 2):
Given the range of an A321 (USAirways flies them PHL-SFO @ 4045 km ) isn't this a bit unusual?

In this case the range doesnt really matter because they would not fill the tanks full on such a short flight.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13435 times:

I seriously doubt that it had to do with range of the airplane. Likely it was due to delays at LHR. My guess is that they did not anticipate a hold as long as was happening at LHR and they did not have enough fuel loaded. If they ended up declaring an emergency and diverting with low fuel to LGW, then it is lack of planning on BA's part as they should always have enough fuel for a missed approach and diversion to an alternate without hitting minimum fuel.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13357 times:

Quoting marky (Reply 3):

I don't think so. Both LGW and LHR have suffered delays today due to low temperatures and runways requiring to be de-iced. A lot of aircraft had to hold for some time, and several easyJets bound for Gatwick diverted to Stansted.

Yes part of the main reason for the divert this evening was probaly due to the de-icing of the runways at LHR, and with loads of traffic holding it didn't help the situation.



3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
User currently offlinelhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 13284 times:

I heard at least twice LHR went down to 1 runway. I landed on KLM at about 1600 and we followed for a bit the deicer (Wondered what it was) And noticed planes were taking off and landing on the same runway.

User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 13273 times:

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 8):
I heard at least twice LHR went down to 1 runway. I landed on KLM at about 1600 and we followed for a bit the deicer (Wondered what it was) And noticed planes were taking off and landing on the same runway.

Wow not good time to go down to a single runway. I wonder if any other aircraft going to LHR had to divert or was near to doing so like the BA 321...



3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4157 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 13192 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Babybus (Reply 1):
That must have been a fuel leak. How can you not carry enough fuel for such a short trip?
Quoting marky (Reply 3):
I don't think so. Both LGW and LHR have suffered delays today due to low temperatures and runways requiring to be de-iced.
Quoting Summa767 (Reply 4):
I wonder if it might have had to do with the strong headwinds that northbound flights have been facing today.
Quoting B747forever (Reply 5):
In this case the range doesnt really matter because they would not fill the tanks full on such a short fli
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 6):
If they ended up declaring an emergency and diverting with low fuel to LGW, then it is lack of planning on BA's part as they should always have enough fuel for a missed approach and diversion to an alternate without hitting minimum fuel.

Fuel planning covers data pertaining to the aircraft weight - and performance - and weather. Yoiu would not believe how accurate these winds-at-altitude charts are. What's left to the captain is the decision on how much fuel to carry for unknowns : ATC delays, operational requirements, airport-related delays like de-icing... It's always a balance between forecast and operational uncertainties . bear in mind that carrying extra fuel will cost more in terms of burn off.There 's a point at which it becomes not acceptable to carry too much fuel... a deviation to an alternate bercomes the...alternative.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinehaggis73 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2010, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 13025 times:

Due to long hold times at LHR.

http://www.thebasource.com/


User currently offlineBA777ER236 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 5724 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 1):
That must have been a fuel leak

Rubbish!

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 2):
isn't this a bit unusual?

Not really!

Quoting marky (Reply 3):
A non-story as usual
Quoting Summa767 (Reply 4):
I wonder if it might have had to do with the strong headwinds that northbound flights have been facing today.

No!

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 6):
I seriously doubt that it had to do with range of the airplane

Correct!

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 8):
I heard at least twice LHR went down to 1 runway.

Ah, Now we are getting to the point!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 10):
Fuel planning covers data pertaining to the aircraft weight - and performance - and weather. Yoiu would not believe how accurate these winds-at-altitude charts are. What's left to the captain is the decision on how much fuel to carry for unknowns : ATC delays, operational requirements, airport-related delays like de-icing... It's always a balance between forecast and operational uncertainties . bear in mind that carrying extra fuel will cost more in terms of burn off.There 's a point at which it becomes not acceptable to carry too much fuel... a deviation to an alternate bercomes the...alternative.

As always Pihero, a cogent and logical professional opinion! I am certain that the captain was able to hold until Diversion + Reserve fuel and then decided to divert to LGW (probably decided well before). He/she would have landed at LGW with at LEAST RESERVE fuel (30 mins), which is the legal minima.

Sadly, the armchair pilots always wade in with 'odd' opinions on a professional's day out! It is mid winter in the UK and things don't always go to plan - here we have a prime example of how the fuels are calculated and a professional doing the right thing!

Cheers
 

[Edited 2011-12-19 11:20:53]


Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 5550 times:

I am not so sure it is the "armchair pilot" as it is the armchair pilots reacting to poor journalism.

Let's face it, the truth ... Which is most likely that the aircraft when entering into British airspace was told that the forecast holding times at LHR exceeded his holding capability with regard to fuel reserves, so he diverted to his alternate. I would guess that he never even came close to 'diversion fuel + reserves', he likely just thought there was no sense wasting time and fuel holding, and just went to LGW.

This does not sell newspapers.

And, yes it happens every day. Why don't the "armchair pilots" know that? Because it isn't news, it is a normal fact of safe aviation.

Remember, British Airways has an excellent safety record ... there is a reason for that!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 5508 times:

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 12):

As always Pihero, a cogent and logical professional opinion! I am certain that the captain was able to hold until Diversion + Reserve fuel and then decided to divert to LGW (probably decided well before). He/she would have landed at LGW with at LEAST RESERVE fuel (30 mins), which is the legal minima.

Sadly, the armchair pilots always wade in with 'odd' opinions on a professional's day out! It is mid winter in the UK and things don't always go to plan - here we have a prime example of how the fuels are calculated and a professional doing the right thing!
Quoting longhauler (Reply 13):

Remember, British Airways has an excellent safety record ... there is a reason for that!

Agreed.         



3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
User currently offlinemusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 845 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3449 times:

The fuel decision philosophy clearly described by Pihero is pretty much industry standard. A related concept is Statistical Contingency Uplift, by which an airline predicts how much delay a flight will suffer taxiing out, enroute and holding, in addition to the obvious factors of payload and winds aloft. The historical fuel consumption of each individual flight is analysed over time, so that for example BA would, this evening, have predicted a fuel burn based on historical delays for that particular flight number, i.e. at that time of day, and factored that into the total fuel requirement for the flight.

Never flown Airbuses, but one might find that for the same aircraft, same load, same flight conditions, a morning rush departure might consume (a guess) 6000 kilos, while a mid day flight might consume 5800 kg.

The Contingency Fuel is an essential component of the fuel calculation. for the sake of the discussion lets say its 5% of the trip fuel as a legal minimum. The mid-day flight might well take just that. However a rush hour flight might have that figure massaged up to take account of typical delays.

The computer flight plan fuel total is thereby increased, and then the captain has the option to add more if he sees fit for en route weather, destination weather, increased burn due to a technical problem etc. etc.

The south of the UK is historically not as good as the north in reacting to even light snow/ice events, and it doesn't take much to throw a spanner in the works, although Gatwick in response to the debacle last winter has aquired a huge fleet of additional snow clearance vehicles, which recently have been proudly parked in a prominent postion near to the runway for all to see. I assume they were all hard at work today!

regards - musang


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7210 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Another factor, is that weather can rapidly deteirorate.

I recall on Friday morning.

The train got to Guildford, and everything looked OK.

But the time we got to LGW, it was practically a blizzard.


User currently offlineDunaA320 From UK - England, joined Feb 2009, 611 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

I had a similar situation on my GVA-LGW flight, we only had enough fuel to hold for 5 minutes so diverted to STN.

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...
British Airways 767- 300(longhaul) What To Espect? posted Fri May 23 2003 19:53:06 by Wimpycol
British Airways Directors On Qantas Reduced To 2 posted Sat Dec 1 2001 05:13:36 by QantasAirways
British Airways, Alitalia,& KLM Talking To Skyteam posted Wed Oct 4 2000 00:33:22 by DeltaAir
British Airways To Get A321 Next Month posted Mon Apr 19 2004 10:43:18 by Starlionblue
British Airways - No More A319s At LGW? posted Fri Nov 25 2011 06:10:31 by SKAirbus
British Airways 767-300s At LGW posted Sun Nov 6 2011 13:19:48 by JosephJarvis
British Airways 'retro' 757 To Fly One Last Time. posted Mon Sep 26 2011 10:07:05 by MANfan
British Airways Ceased Routes LGW posted Fri Sep 16 2011 20:13:47 by JosephJarvis
British Airways Announces New Service To San Juan posted Sun Oct 10 2010 19:23:45 by wladi755
Former British Airways Route To Manila posted Wed Oct 6 2010 04:36:35 by Khaleej777