Jelle
Topic Author
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:52 am

KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:19 am

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?
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:21 am

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?).
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:23 am

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.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:32 am

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.
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
bananaboy
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:58 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:37 am

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
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:40 am

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
 
HB-IWC
Posts: 4033
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2000 1:09 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:41 am

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.
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:27 am

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
 
Jelle
Topic Author
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:52 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:30 am

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?
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:34 am

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
 
oly720man
Posts: 5745
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:49 am

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
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12398
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:54 am

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?
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:41 am

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... :-(
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19002
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:18 am

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.
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:11 pm

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
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:17 pm

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... :-(
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:20 pm

So we have winds different than predicted, unusual strength and direction, and a careful pilot who did a proper job. Safety first!
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:42 pm

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
 
trent1000
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:55 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:06 pm

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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9855
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:48 pm

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
 
HB-IWC
Posts: 4033
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2000 1:09 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:35 pm

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.
 
airforum
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 10:48 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:55 pm

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.
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:36 pm

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.
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:45 pm

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
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:30 pm

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.
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:49 pm

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.
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
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:03 am

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 24):
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.

Quite right. Agreed.
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:45 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 25):
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.

Okay. Debate over. And, for you conspiracy theorists (LOL), the rest of us proved right. Lower flight levels usually mean slower cruise speeds too, likewise adding to the fuel burn being higher than usual. The fuel burn is calculated at the opitimum cruise speed for that aircraft. So if you go lower and slower, or hit high winds, or speed up (obviously), you will adversely affect your fuel burn. And in my experience, flight plans are usually only filed 2 hours prior to a flight. A lot can happen weather-wise in a two hour span, as we have seen in this example.

717
 
airbuster
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:43 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:07 am

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 problem on these routes to this extent.
-the oceanic clearance they got maybe didn't clear them on the level or route (an NAT isn't used by klm on that route) that was planned during dispatch
-sometimes there are mid atlantic NAT's wich the planned route crossed, the rules state that one has to be below or above them, this shouldn't be too big of an issue because the acft is lighter nearing the end of the flight.
-what happend once on an md11 out of SFO was it seemed heavier than the loadsheet indicated, standard pax weights used are 70kg (F) and 88kg (M), and bagage 15kg, if there is a significant amount of heavier pax on board, this could pose a problem

Last thing i would like to say is that klm has a thorough fuel policy and registers all fuel data from each flight and predicts the fuel that should be added for unexpected events enroute, contingecys, this is sufficient for 99% or 90%(if an enroute alternate is available. btw it's Shannon coming from the carribean) of the flights...so maybe this was the unlucky 1 or 10 %

regards
AB
FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
 
airforum
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 10:48 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:22 pm

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 23):
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.

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 violations of rules are part of the world we live in and that does not exclude aviation. If so, there would be no accidents and incidents at all. Actually, most of the serious accidents in aviation are caused by a chain of mistakes, misunderstandings and violations of rules. The attitude of 'there's always a reason to not blame the professional' is perhaps the most dangerous thing of all.
What goes up, must come down. Let's hope the sky never went up.
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:07 pm

Quoting Airforum (Reply 29):
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 violations of rules are part of the world we live in and that does not exclude aviation. If so, there would be no accidents and incidents at all. Actually, most of the serious accidents in aviation are caused by a chain of mistakes, misunderstandings and violations of rules. The attitude of 'there's always a reason to not blame the professional' is perhaps the most dangerous thing of all.

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 weather in this situation, NOT whether or not one of the professionals did their job correctly. It's all a matter of attitude and understanding. And in lieu of the final explanation from the company... everyone was rather quick to blame technical difficulties or someone not doing their job... anything but the actual, plausible answer staring you in the face. With myself and others giving you the answer, why would that be the automatic response... to question the pilot or the fueler? That's a curious thing I think. Speculation runs rampant on a.net. And it's very disconcerting to see this, as an experienced and knowledgeable ex-professional in this industry myself. While I was a lowly, peon flight attendant, I never stopped asking questions or learning about my environment or job. And... coming from the company I did... ValuJet in the old days... you can see that I don't take kindly to misinformed assumptions. That's where rumors come from. But no one seems to care about that, as long as they have something interesting to gossip about.

717
 
airforum
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 10:48 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:47 pm

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 30):
And in lieu of the final explanation from the company... everyone was rather quick to blame technical difficulties or someone not doing their job... anything but the actual, plausible answer staring you in the face. With myself and others giving you the answer, why would that be the automatic response... to question the pilot or the fueler? That's a curious thing I think.

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 really think they would wash their dirty linen in public? The reasons they gave may have been of influence to what has happened, but do not necessarily have to be the whole truth.

You seem to be convinced that it are the nitwits who blame the professionals. I tend to think that it's the aviation enthusiast ("one who is ardently absorbed in an interest") who takes the 'plausible answer' for granted.
What goes up, must come down. Let's hope the sky never went up.
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:14 pm

Quoting Airforum (Reply 31):
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 really think they would wash their dirty linen in public? The reasons they gave may have been of influence to what has happened, but do not necessarily have to be the whole truth.

You seem to be convinced that it are the nitwits who blame the professionals. I tend to think that it's the aviation enthusiast ("one who is ardently absorbed in an interest") who takes the 'plausible answer' for granted.

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 sooooo sure it's someone's wrong doing... look it up on the safety sites... The FAA posts all incidents and accidents on their site. Obviously this would fall outside of the FAA's jurisdiction since it was not a US carrier or a flight to/from a US city. But you seem to have outsmarted the rest of us... so you'll figure it out.

I have almost ten year's experience in this industry... I was only a fligth attendant. But I listened intently to my crews and all the others with more experience than my own. But I am just an enthusiast who is merely ardently absorbed? Nice. The problem is you are acting like the media and jumping to conclusions, as they do 99.999% of the time, before the truth of it is known. Call it spin. Call it ratings. Call it whatever you want... but it's not the best policy to assume thigs before you know all the facts. That said... this is a board of a largely diverse group of ardently absorbed enthusiasts, as well as well-trained and very experienced professionals within the insudtry. Many times... more often than not... the facts are disclosed or discovered way into the post... and all anyone can do is speculate and germinate theories. While I don't discount that it could have been a massive blunder... knowing what I do about the jetstream this time of year and the havoc it plays on flights everywhere... I sincerely doubt it, as do many others on this particular thread. Possible?? Yes. Probable. No. Example: I once left BOS 20 minutes late and arrived in ATL 45 minutes early due to the jetstream this time of year... But what do I know, right? I'm just an ardently absorbed enthusiast with no possible merit to my experience or knowledge...

717
 
airforum
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 10:48 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:20 pm

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 32):
But you seem to have outsmarted the rest of us

Thank you. I'd rather describe it as having another opinion (which actually is not a very uncommon thing on a forum).

Quoting Airforum (Reply 31):
I tend to think that it's the aviation enthusiast ("one who is ardently absorbed in an interest") who takes the 'plausible answer' for granted.



Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 32):
But I am just an enthusiast who is merely ardently absorbed? Nice.

At no point I was referring to you when mentioning the word 'enthusiast'. It's just something I've noticed many times on this forum. In the Netherlands we have a saying, which in English would be "love makes blind". That's what I am talking about. The definition of 'enthusiast' (between the brackets) hits the nail on the head, and that's why I added it.

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 32):
knowing what I do about the jetstream this time of year and the havoc it plays on flights everywhere

Have you been thinking of what happens when you underestimate the jetstream and the havoc your are talking about? When things get more complicated than usually, it's harder to make the right choices.

I am not trying to make an elephant of this mosquito btw. I realize no one has been in danger and I realize diversions like this happen from time to time. But, having said that, I'd rather be a critic than a credulous person.
What goes up, must come down. Let's hope the sky never went up.
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:33 am

Quoting Airforum (Reply 34):
Have you been thinking of what happens when you underestimate the jetstream and the havoc your are talking about? When things get more complicated than usually, it's harder to make the right choices.

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 another example... do you consider it poor planning when a flight plan is rerouted after departure, for weather... say... thunderstorms and such? Is it bad planning to make a fuel stop under those conditions? There are certain things that can and do change enroute. This seems to be no different. They can plan for the forecast to a certain degree. Once enroute, you are at the mercies of the winds and weather... which change more frequently than most people realize. While no one else mentioned whether that was a factor or not... like you, I can interject my own ideas on this. I can do this because I have been through it more times than I care to recount. On a tangent... along this same line of thought... you get a ground stop for wx somewhere downline... Call it a 2 hour wheels up. The weather might have already passed through your downline destination, but you can't let 500 planes converge on a city at one time. So, they space out the arrivals. No one understand such a simple concept. The customers think it's a personal conspiracy against them, and only them. LOL Okay... done with that soapbox rant. Sorry.

But my point is simple... you can't live your whole life on concrete numbers and facts. Some things are fluid and necessary to allow for some sway. You can plan a fuel load for a certain block time or weather condition... but often changes as you go long your flight plan. If you get a reroute that takes you 200 miles out and around a storm system, do you not think that is something you could not have planned for (to a certain extent). You can use up some of your reserve fuel load in some instances... but it's not a good idea when you haven't gotten to your destination yet... what if you have to hold going in due to traffic saturation or a microburst cell right over the field? Come on. You have to see this. Making a simple fuel stop is not a huge issue. It doesn't compromise the safety of the flight or anything of the sort. Instead of allowing your problem to become a disaster, why not take steps to get there in one piece? Better to be safe and look like an ill-planned idiot than be a spot on some mountainside.

717
 
airforum
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 10:48 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:41 am

You've made yourself very clear. I let you know if more details about this diversion show up.

Off topic: I LOVE 717s  Wink
What goes up, must come down. Let's hope the sky never went up.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:05 am

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 23):
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?

well, as a.nutters they're automatically world authorities in anything to do with aviation, and of course internationally recognised experts on conspiracies as well.
I wish I were flying
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:49 pm

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 36):
well, as a.nutters they're automatically world authorities in anything to do with aviation, and of course internationally recognised experts on conspiracies as well.

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 does equal 4. LOL

717
 
Jelle
Topic Author
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:52 am

RE: KL736 Without Fuel

Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:32 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 910A, AsiaTravel, dallas6940, DBun, Flaps, golfradio, Google [Bot], hOMSaR, hummingbird, IslandRob, LAX772LR, piedmont762, Quantos, Saleem, SFOtoORD, thomasphoto60 and 301 guests