Originally Posted by
ozflier
I am a little confused at the reasoning behind return to the west coast vs the closer airport at HNL.
If the issue was one of faulty fuel indicators, then you have to assume that there was concern re the ability to accurately to determine the quantum of fuel remaining in the tanks - eg their absence or faults would place the a/c at risk if there was some abnormal fuel burning situation or a leak ( or anything else I can think up) ie the extra use / loss would not be detected.
So if the pilots were faced with unreliable fuel indications, and my interpretation above is correct, then I would have thought that landing at the nearest appropriate port would be the thing to do not fly on to somewhere that was operationally more appropriate.
Maybe I am missing something.
It may have just been on 1 or 2 tanks
And if the indicators were showing empty you have to assume that that tank is empty and leaked out
This means you can't make it all the way to Syd safely but still means you can fly back with plenty of reserve fuel
I trust the 747 crews who are the most experienced at united to only do what is safe
And they would trust operations who would have said that it was going to get the plane fixed quicker to fly it back to lax then to HNL
Also from a rebooking option
There are many many many more flights ex lax over ex HNL to Syd