jlk
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:35 pm

SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:44 pm

SQ1 from SFO-HKG is making a fuel stop in TPE due to heavy head winds and will arrive in SIN delayed by a couple of hrs.

I have 3 questions.

1. Is the wind so strong that extra fuel cannot be carried to fly the jumbo non stop to HKG?
2. Who makes the call to land in TPE. Given that it was decided even before the bird left SFO, does this call come from the captain or the operational staff on the ground?
3. Will CX departing around the same time from SFO also have to stop somewhere for refuelling?

- Jay
 
Vref5
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:55 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:04 pm

Quoting Jlk (Thread starter):
1. Is the wind so strong that extra fuel cannot be carried to fly the jumbo non stop to HKG?
2. Who makes the call to land in TPE. Given that it was decided even before the bird left SFO, does this call come from the captain or the operational staff on the ground?
3. Will CX departing around the same time from SFO also have to stop somewhere for refuelling?

1. If you take on extra fuel, you may end up having to leave something off. Passengers or baggage. Extra fuel also represents more mass that you then need to accelerate -- and thus, require more energy to push it.

Extra fuel is not necessarily a cure-all solution for all problems. Sometimes you run into other limitations before you have a chance to fill up fuel to the gills.

Ultimately, the company dispatch department makes the best suggestion for how to most cost-effectively operate the flight, pending the Captain's final approval for their suggested plan of action.

2. Usually it's the company dispatch whom does the flight planning (including the number crunching) for the flight and keeps an eye on flight status including fuel burn, redispatch points, and whatnot.

The Captain may also elect to divert if he/she feels it necessary, too. But for the typical situation with fuel burn issues, will be company dispatch whom suggests a diversion to an alternative to refuel.

3. It depends. It's possible the CX flight is not fully loaded or is weight restricted and can take on more fuel... or maybe not. CX's own dispatchers will be able to make that determination based on exact numbers for that flight.
 
stylo777
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:12 pm

how would such a fuel stop look like?
plane lands in TPE, taxi to a remote near the runway, getting fueled, taxi back to the runway and take-off??? a procedure of almost 30minutes i suppose...
But I heard about that fueling while pax onboard isn't allowed so have the passengers to disembark?
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5176
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:14 pm

was checking some stats on winds lastnight for the part of the region SQ1 would take enroute to HK. headwinds were around 170kts at fl 350.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:45 pm

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 2):
I heard about that fueling while pax onboard isn't allowed so have the passengers to disembark?

I was onboard a flight while it was being refueled earlier this month, so it's definitely allowed.

SQ1 makes a tech stop due to strong winds about 5 times per year, usually at TPE. I'm sure it happens to CX as well, both from SFO and from LAX.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:58 pm

Quoting Jlk (Thread starter):
1. Is the wind so strong that extra fuel cannot be carried to fly the jumbo non stop to HKG?
2. Who makes the call to land in TPE. Given that it was decided even before the bird left SFO, does this call come from the captain or the operational staff on the ground?
3. Will CX departing around the same time from SFO also have to stop somewhere for refuelling?

1) This time of year, basically, it's full tanks and that's about all that you can squeeze on. The winds this time of year howl and it's not uncommon to see over 200 Knots for a few hours of the flight.

2) Sometimes it's known a fuel stop will be required prior to leaving SFO and the trip fuel for TPE is loaded and that's it.

3) In other cases, the fuel burn is ok for a non-stop to HKG, but during the flight the winds aren't as forecast, the temp is off, there could be a re-route, or lower than planned altitudes were used. When this happens the fuel burn will increase. If it's a "re-dispatch" flight plan there is a "re-dispatch point" where you're required to have a certain amount of fuel on board. If not, now the Capt gets paid for his decision making. You can, sometimes change the alternate thus getting a little lower fuel required, or if that's not possible, then it's a fuel stop. The en-route fuel stop is generally decided on by both the Captain and Dispatch. However, the "re-dispatch" flight plan is "normally" to the desired fuel stop. But enroute, things can change and a new fuel stop could be used do to things like weather, ATC delays.

4) In the cases where I've stopped for fuel, it was coordinated way in advance and we were fueled, catered and out in about 45 minutes. It really depends on the airline and what they want to do during the stop.

5) As far as CX stopping, it really depends on their loads, fuel policy and ATC routing. The 744 is right at it's limit on the SFO-HKG route and if CX worked with payload restrictions they might not have to stop.
Fly fast, live slow
 
lamedianaranja
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:21 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:58 pm

AMS sees some a/c that can't make LHR due to strong headwinds every once in a while. QF is one of them.

KL663(B737BBJ) fuels at Gander if it can't make IAH in one hop.
I wish that all skies were orange and blue!!
 
QF744ER
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:59 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:12 pm

I flew on MH93 last month LAX-TPE with 170-200knot head-winds all the way.

Was airborne for 13hr55mins.

Pretty impressive I thought although the flight wasn't full.

61 second take-off roll ex LAX.
 
tsentsan
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:48 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:20 am

I understand with a conversation from a flight crew last time that the flight plan for SQ1 will be filed until TPE and the crew/dispatch will decide en-route if they will "extend" the flight to HKG... would this be an accurate?
NO URLS in signature
 
jfk777
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:35 am

The flight from the west cast of the USA to HKG which visisted TPE often was the Delta MD-11 from LAX to HKG. 744's from SFO and LAX make it all the way under all but the most extreme situations. Cathay, UA & Singapore don't have reputations for being unscheduled vistitors to TPE. Now how about west coast to bangkok ?
 
cchan
Posts: 952
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:37 am

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 2):
how would such a fuel stop look like?
plane lands in TPE, taxi to a remote near the runway, getting fueled, taxi back to the runway and take-off??? a procedure of almost 30minutes i suppose...
But I heard about that fueling while pax onboard isn't allowed so have the passengers to disembark?

I was on a NZ B767-300ER from HKG to AKL a couple of years ago, there was a long queue for take off at HKG, and the flight was full with passengers and cargo. We landed at BNE for a fuel stop. The plane parked at one of the gates, door opened, but passengers were not allowed to leave the aircraft while it was refueling. Once the refueling is done, we took off again. Took about 20-30 min.
 
andrew
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 9:58 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Wind

Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:40 am

I was in a UA 744 flying SFO-HKG-SIN back in 1993 and we had to make a tech-stop in TPE after flying for 14 hours on the SFO-HKG leg. Captain came on the intercom and announced that we didn't have enough fuel to reach HKG and as a result will be making a tech stop in TPE to take on more fuel.
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 3649
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:42 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 9):
The flight from the west cast of the USA to HKG which visisted TPE often was the Delta MD-11 from LAX to HKG.

Why would the DL MD-11 have made a fuel stop in TPE from LAX-HKG when it made a scheduled stop in ANC? Furthermore, TPE was a scheduled DL destination from PDX, onward to BKK, I believe.
 
bkkair
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:10 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:46 am

The stops are planned long in advance, up to 6 hours before departure.

In the case of CX, a new crew (cockpit and cabin) boards in Taipei or Incheon (depending on where the stop is) so these crew need to be in place well before the departure from the US.

There are also landing fees that must be paid in TPE or ICN (around US$10,000 in TPE) so the airline must calculate that it is better to pay an extra crew and landing fees than to offload passengers or cargo.

On several occasions on CX, I have seen the cargo and passenger baggage offloaded and they still made a fuel stop.

On 27Dec, CX and UA made it non-stop from SFO-HKG whilst SQ stopped in TPE (all using 744 equipment).
 
jimyvr
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:17 am

** SQ - SINGAPORE AIRLINES **
SQ 1 744 9VSPD 28DEC SFOTPEHKGSIN
SCHD EST ACT PSG DLY
DEP SFO M 0005 0007
ARR TPE M 0550-29.0550-29
DEP TPE M 0650-29 0650-29
ARR HKG M 0655-29.0835-29
DEP HKG M 0800-29 0935-29
ARR SIN M 1150-29.1325-29
1000 - 01MAR07 | http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/
 
raventom
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:50 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:18 am

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 2):
But I heard about that fueling while pax onboard isn't allowed so have the passengers to disembark?

I was on an AF flight from HKG to CDG when we had to turn back to a remote stand as a woman was screaming during taxi. We were told to un buckle our seatbelts during a quick re-fuel incase the worst happened. If so we would be ready to evacute with no seatbelts thus saving time etc.
I love the smell of burnt kerosene!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Wind

Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:46 am

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 12):
Why would the DL MD-11 have made a fuel stop in TPE from LAX-HKG when it made a scheduled stop in ANC?

I believe the scheduled stop in ANC ended when the route switched from L-1011 to MD-11. The MD-11 route was scheduled as a nonstop.

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 12):
Furthermore, TPE was a scheduled DL destination from PDX, onward to BKK, I believe.

As I recall the routing was PDX-SEL-TPE-BKK.

[Edited 2006-12-28 17:48:29]
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:58 am

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 2):
how would such a fuel stop look like?
plane lands in TPE, taxi to a remote near the runway, getting fueled, taxi back to the runway and take-off??? a procedure of almost 30minutes i suppose...

Our own TUGMASTER had a 777 come into LHR on a medical diversion (I believe the flight was a nonstop from India to the US), stairs and fuel truck were attached as the engines ran down, doctor on, pilots radioing for taxi and flightplan clearance, stretcher off (with sick pax strapped to it), fuel going on all the while, as soon as the fuelling was finished, stairs and fuel track are gone and they're taxiing back to the runway. I think it took about 19 mins from brakes on to brakes off. Taipei for the SQ flight may have taken slightly longer (depending on how much fuel they uplifted from HKG) but these things can be done very fast. I was on an Olympic 747-200 that couldn't make Singapore to Athens without a tech stop (Dubai) cos of high winds aloft, we were on the tarmac at DXB for maybe 30 mins.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
jlk
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:35 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:23 am

Quoting Bkkair (Reply 13):
On 27Dec, CX and UA made it non-stop from SFO-HKG whilst SQ stopped in TPE (all using 744 equipment).

That's interesting. All of them use the same equipment and CX leaves around the same time. This time of the year the flights should be completely packed. Infact SQ was checking with passengers if they absolutely needed to travel last night; overbooking I guess. I don't it would be any different with CX.

Btw, the regisration was 9V-SPD
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:41 am

As with most airliner models, there are various takeoff weights and engine combinations used by different carriers and thus different performance characteristics.

The reason why AA undoubtedly turnedtheir 777 in LHR so quickly was because they knew they were on the verge of having the pilots go illegal and thus the flight would have to be cancelled. That type of effort is not normal in aviation - although we can wish it were.

I'm honestly surprised that some of the Asiancarriers mentioned here are not staffing their transpac flights with 2 full crews such that they have the crew resources to endure a diversion and still take off w/ the same crews that brought the flight in.

It is possible to file a flight plan to an enroute point and then redispatch at that point through to the final destination assuming the fuel load is adequate. If not, a diversion is probably in order.
 
jimyvr
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:09 am

Quoting FoxBravo (Reply 16):
As I recall the routing was PDX-SEL-TPE-BKK.

DL flew PDX-SEL-TPE-BKK and PDX-TPE-BKK

Quoting Jlk (Reply 18):
Btw, the regisration was 9V-SPD

I briefly mentioned that on FLIFO from SQ.
1000 - 01MAR07 | http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/
 
User avatar
malaysia
Posts: 2616
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 7):
I flew on MH93 last month LAX-TPE with 170-200knot head-winds all the way.

Was airborne for 13hr55mins.

Pretty impressive I thought although the flight wasn't full.

61 second take-off roll ex LAX.

I did MH 93 at 14.25 hours LAX-TPE one-time
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2088
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:55 am

Quoting Vref5 (Reply 1):

3. It depends. It's possible the CX flight is not fully loaded or is weight restricted and can take on more fuel... or maybe not. CX's own dispatchers will be able to make that determination based on exact numbers for that flight.

Don't the RR powered 747s (CX) have less fuel consumption than the PW powered 747s (SQ)? This would mean that CX could potentially fly SFO-HKG with out limits even with head winds.
 
IDISA
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:18 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:22 am

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 2):
But I heard about that fueling while pax onboard isn't allowed so have the passengers to disembark?

As long as I know fueling is still possible with pax onboard but the fire brigade must be under the aircraft. I've seen this procedure many times here in MXP so I suppose is worldwide procedure.

IDISA
 
jfk777
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 12):



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 12):
Why would the DL MD-11 have made a fuel stop in TPE from LAX-HKG when it made a scheduled stop in ANC? Furthermore, TPE was a scheduled DL destination from PDX, onward to BKK, I believe.

Delta only stopped at ANC in the beginning of the LAX-HKG service as a scheduled stop, they started the servcie with L-1011-500's. After Delta switched to the MD-11 it continued to stop at ANC. When they went NONSTOP LAX-HKG still with MD-11's, then they had the unscheduled TPE stops.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Wind

Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:57 am

Quoting Bkkair (Reply 13):
On 27Dec, CX and UA made it non-stop from SFO-HKG whilst SQ stopped in TPE (all using 744 equipment).



Quoting Jlk (Reply 18):
All of them use the same equipment



Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 22):
Don't the RR powered 747s (CX) have less fuel consumption than the PW powered 747s (SQ)?

Another issue is that 9V-SPD has the extra hump for the Connexion antenna, which would increase aerodynamic drag and fuel consumption. The SQ configuration also probably has the heaviest OEW of the three due to the different cabin fittings. SQ have 375 seats, CX have 345, and UA have 347.
 
DC8FanJet
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:25 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:34 am

Head winds, Solar flares, heavy loads, it's that time of year. Westbound transpacific flying is a challenge in the winter. Need to get as much payload as possible on.
 
jlk
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:35 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:54 am

Seems like SQ1 completed fueling in 50 minutes which might suggest that the passengers were not deplaned. But its scheduled transit in HKG onroute to SIN has a 65 minute layover and the passengers are asked to deplane and get back in.

Airport Scheduled Time Actual Time Estimated Time Status
Arrival In Taipei (TPE) 05:50 (+1) 06:14 (+1) Arrived
Departure From Taipei (TPE) 06:50 (+1) 07:05 (+1) Departed
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:57 am

I was checking flightware before and two PAL airlines 747-400s enroute from SFO and LAX to MNL made stops in Guam, I guess they needed to also gas up.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
PanAmOldDC8
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:25 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:59 am

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 2):
But I heard about that fueling while pax onboard isn't allowed so have the passengers to disembark?

I have been on an Air Canada flight that was delayed due to weather and we had to land in Ottawa, we were de iced and refueled for the flight to YYZ. When I worked for Pan Am you were allowed to stay on board during refueling as long as there were no open flames, cigarettes, lighters etc in use.
Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
 
jlk
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:35 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:05 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 28):
I was checking flightware before and two PAL airlines 747-400s enroute from SFO and LAX to MNL made stops in Guam, I guess they needed to also gas up.

I guess you mean PR by PAL airlines. If so, I believe it has a scheduled stop in GUAM on the onward from SFO, but the return is a non-stop.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:35 am

Quoting Tsentsan (Reply 8):
I understand with a conversation from a flight crew last time that the flight plan for SQ1 will be filed until TPE and the crew/dispatch will decide en-route if they will "extend" the flight to HKG... would this be an accurate?



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
In other cases, the fuel burn is ok for a non-stop to HKG, but during the flight the winds aren't as forecast, the temp is off, there could be a re-route, or lower than planned altitudes were used. When this happens the fuel burn will increase. If it's a "re-dispatch" flight plan there is a "re-dispatch point" where you're required to have a certain amount of fuel on board. If not, now the Capt gets paid for his decision making. You can, sometimes change the alternate thus getting a little lower fuel required, or if that's not possible, then it's a fuel stop. The en-route fuel stop is generally decided on by both the Captain and Dispatch. However, the "re-dispatch" flight plan is "normally" to the desired fuel stop. But enroute, things can change and a new fuel stop could be used do to things like weather, ATC delays.

There are actually two flight plans filed. One with the refueling point if needed, the other to the intended destination, in this case HKG. You operate as if you're going to HKG, but at a certain point a decision is based on the fuel remaining and forecast as to your ability to legally continue non-stop to HKG or divert to TPE.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 22):
Don't the RR powered 747s (CX) have less fuel consumption than the PW powered 747s (SQ)? This would mean that CX could potentially fly SFO-HKG with out limits even with head winds.

Yes, the RR have better fuel consumnption that the PW (marginal) but they are also heavier, so your zero fuel weight is increased by about 4 tonnes.
Fly fast, live slow
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:50 am

Quoting Jlk (Reply 27):
But its scheduled transit in HKG onroute to SIN has a 65 minute layover and the passengers are asked to deplane and get back in.

That's also so they can clean and cater and remove some HKG bound cargo and take on some HKG-SIN cargo. That's still pretty impressive to do all that on a 744 in 65 minutes.

For the fuel stop in TPE, they may only fuel up, take off some trash, and some minor other things. And you can stay on the plane for that, as a pax.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:51 am

Oh, and they also have to unload HKG bound pax and their bags, and add on HKG-SIN pax and their bags. Again, 65 minutes is pretty impressive.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
BreninTW
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:57 am

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 2):
plane lands in TPE, taxi to a remote near the runway, getting fueled, taxi back to the runway and take-off??? a procedure of almost 30minutes i suppose...
But I heard about that fueling while pax onboard isn't allowed so have the passengers to disembark?

A couple of years ago I was flying JNB-HKG on a CX 343 when the pilot told us (before takeoff) that we would be stopping in SIN to top up the fuel ("we can't get enough fuel onboard to make it all the way to HKG" were his words).

We were on the ground for about 30 or 40 minutes in SIN -- we didn't leave the a/c, and I don't actually remember being asked to unfasten seatbelts (but we were while they were filling up in JNB).
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:09 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 9):
Cathay, UA & Singapore don't have reputations for being unscheduled vistitors to TPE

CX has a long reputation for fuel stops in TPE and ICN at this time of year out of LAX. There was a thread on flyertalk.com that tracked them all last winter. Interesting record:

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=500881
International Homo of Mystery
 
10mid
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:15 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:25 am

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 2):
how would such a fuel stop look like?
plane lands in TPE, taxi to a remote near the runway, getting fueled, taxi back to the runway and take-off??? a procedure of almost 30minutes i suppose...

Just pull up to the self-serve pumps at the FBO, whip out the BP card and fill 'er up.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:26 am

Quoting Bkkair (Reply 13):

On 27Dec, CX and UA made it non-stop from SFO-HKG whilst SQ stopped in TPE (all using 744 equipment).

Of course a lot depends on the load, but I know UA's 744s have a lower MTOW than some others because they use the lower powered P&W engines models. They may have a bit more range as a result since they would always send a 744 from SFO to HKG with a full load of fuel.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:34 am

And it may be that UA tries to minimize fuel stops while other carriers are alot more willing to endure them. I still find it hard to believe that any 744 can't make it to HKG from LAX or SFO if the airline wants to fly nonstop. A 744 should be capable of staying in the air for 15 hours.
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:38 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 37):
Of course a lot depends on the load, but I know UA's 744s have a lower MTOW than some others because they use the lower powered P&W engines models

aren't all PW 744 PW4056?? I thought only the few 744ERFs with Pratts had the 4062. MTOW does vary but I don't think the Pratt engine type
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:54 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 9):
The flight from the west cast of the USA to HKG which visisted TPE often was the Delta MD-11 from LAX to HKG. 744's from SFO and LAX make it all the way under all but the most extreme situations. Cathay, UA & Singapore don't have reputations for being unscheduled vistitors to TPE. Now how about west coast to bangkok ?

I kinda wonder about the TG A345 and whether or not its incredible range is sufficient to push through from LAX-BKK, interesting to see if it makes the stop as well.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 37):

Of course a lot depends on the load, but I know UA's 744s have a lower MTOW than some others because they use the lower powered P&W engines models. They may have a bit more range as a result since they would always send a 744 from SFO to HKG with a full load of fuel.

I am fairly certain only one model of PW4000 was used on non-ER 744's as well. I also thought UA's 744s were rated to max MTOW.... unless I'm mistaken their ORD-HKG is about the longest 744 route going. I wonder if it is making stops as well?

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 38):
And it may be that UA tries to minimize fuel stops while other carriers are alot more willing to endure them. I still find it hard to believe that any 744 can't make it to HKG from LAX or SFO if the airline wants to fly nonstop. A 744 should be capable of staying in the air for 15 hours.

Fully loaded with fuel, it has to be able to make it, but of course, fully loaded with cargo and pax, it can't then completely carry a full load of fuel. It's a decision on the part of the airline.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 39):
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 37):
Of course a lot depends on the load, but I know UA's 744s have a lower MTOW than some others because they use the lower powered P&W engines models

aren't all PW 744 PW4056?? I thought only the few 744ERFs with Pratts had the 4062. MTOW does vary but I don't think the Pratt engine type

I agree they are all PW4056s, but are UA's 744s paper derated for MTOW?
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Wind

Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:10 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 40):
I kinda wonder about the TG A345 and whether or not its incredible range is sufficient to push through from LAX-BKK, interesting to see if it makes the stop as well.

As long as they don't load cargo, the A340-500 should be able to make it nonstop LAX-BKK with 180 passengers regardless of weather.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 40):
unless I'm mistaken their ORD-HKG is about the longest 744 route going. I wonder if it is making stops as well?

Yes, they sometimes make tech stops.

As for SQ1, SQ are retiring their remaining JumboJets over the next five or so years. SQ1 will eventually switch to either a B777-300ER or a WhaleJet, either of which has better range than the B747-400. Tech stops should be reduced in frequency then.
 
NYCA330
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:46 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:35 pm

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 3):
was checking some stats on winds lastnight for the part of the region SQ1 would take enroute to HK. headwinds were around 170kts at fl 350.

Is there an online resource where it is possible to check winds aloft easily? I've tried googling it and ended up with a headache...
 
Mr.BA
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:19 pm

When it has to come down to a technical stop more money must be spent to pay for the landing fees, additional fuel and for some of the stuff that was offloaded at the origin. Does all this have a big impact on their earnings on this particular flight?
Boeing747 万岁!
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:01 pm

It will be VERY interesting to see if SQ can fly the A380-800 non-stop from SFO to HKG year-round, especially since Airbus has certified the plane at standard MTOW to fly 8,000 nautical miles non-stop, compared to the 7,200 nautical mile still-air range of the 747-400.
 
N503JB
Posts: 291
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 3:49 am

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:50 pm

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 2):
But I heard about that fueling while pax onboard isn't allowed so have the passengers to disembark?

TK used to operated SIN-BKK-IST and HKG-BKK-IST, passenger are remain onboard during stopover at BKK while refueling. As far as I know in THY operating manual isn't allowed passenger onboard while refuelling, in this case they allow.

Regards
HKIA Ramp Spotters
 
jlk
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:35 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:00 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 41):
As for SQ1, SQ are retiring their remaining JumboJets over the next five or so years. SQ1 will eventually switch to either a B777-300ER or a WhaleJet, either of which has better range than the B747-400.

Speaking of the SQ fleet, does anyone know how old are their youngest and oldest jumbos that are actively used for transcontinent services?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:15 pm

Quoting Jlk (Reply 46):
does anyone know how old are their youngest and oldest jumbos that are actively used for transcontinent services?

If one counts Europe and Asia as separate continents, then SQ don't use Jumbos for transcontinental services. If one counts Eurasia as one continent, then the oldest Jumbo in the SQ fleet, 9V-SMP, just turned 14 and can occasionally be found on SIN-LHR runs. The newest, 9V-SPQ, just turned 5 years old.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9919
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Wind

Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:44 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
5) As far as CX stopping, it really depends on their loads, fuel policy and ATC routing. The 744 is right at it's limit on the SFO-HKG route and if CX worked with payload restrictions they might not have to stop.

Also depends on the person driving it, TOGA and no derated climb can help on a long flight.

Quoting IDISA (Reply 23):
As long as I know fueling is still possible with pax onboard but the fire brigade must be under the aircraft. I've seen this procedure many times here in MXP so I suppose is worldwide procedure.

Refuelling jet fuel is generally possible with pax onboard, it comes down to the regulations the airlines work under.

Fire trucks are normally only called for a fuel spill.

Refuelling with AVGAS with passengers onboard is not permitted.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 44):
It will be VERY interesting to see if SQ can fly the A380-800 non-stop from SFO to HKG year-round, especially since Airbus has certified the plane at standard MTOW to fly 8,000 nautical miles non-stop, compared to the 7,200 nautical mile still-air range of the 747-400.

One of the route proving flights it has done was SYD-YVR with 55-60t of payload, took off under MTOW and flew approx 7800 nm.

Apparently it can comfortably do SFO-HKG with an average 100+kt headwind and 555 pax.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds

Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:04 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 48):
Also depends on the person driving it, TOGA and no derated climb can help on a long flight.

I'm not quite sure you mean about TOGA, but for derated cllimbs the FMS is programmed to go to full climb between 10,000-14,000 no matter what is selected in the CDU.
Fly fast, live slow