pjpoker

It was diverted for inoperative windshield wipers. Sounds dumb, but the wipers can be MEL'ed (Flown inoperative) as long as there is no forecasted rain within 5 miles of the arrival airport. Since this couldn't be achieved in DTW, they had to go somewhere else. I'm assuming they were fixed in CVG before continuing to DTW.

brocklee9000

Interesting. I wonder if it was deferred before takeoff, or had been deferred for a while, or if they got an updated TAF or ATIS with rain within 5 miles. According to the MMEL for the 747-400 (found on the faa.gov site), inop windshield wipers are 2 installed, 0 required for dispatch, and category C (10 day deferral).

davetravels

Wow, brocklee9000, it looks like you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last nite! Nice work!



Ya' mean they had to fix B744 wipers with parts from a CRJ?!?!?!?!?

Felixishim

Well DL may not put much reserve fuel since they know that even with the occasional divert they save more money this way with less weight and foreign fuel just like overbooking.

after Richard Anderson is up, they tend to use airplane that only has a little higher range then the actually flying distance as well in order to maximize the efficiency

MSPeconomist

Those were ultimately expensive windshield wipers if they caused a diversion.

brocklee9000

Haha, well...thanks. When it comes to actually doing real homework, or researching stuff for FT, I'll choose the latter haha. Plus, aviation is my passion, and I'm actually studying this stuff right now, so it was all fresh in my head.

I don't know if DL does it, but I know some airlines will fill up a plane with more fuel than is needed and will ferry it, either for shorter regional flights (so they don't have to refuel at an outstation if they're just returning to the hub), or maybe even on an international flight that continues on to another nearby international destination?

davetravels

Have you met N639DL???

MSPeconomist

I've heard of ferrying fuel for the return flight from places with expensive fuel. Supposedly the ME3 do this regularly.

I think there was also a story of flights to some dangerous spot stopping to refuel on a nearby island on the way out in order to minimize the time that their equipment and crew spent on the ground in the risky location.

kettle1

Do you have proof of this? I see you used the word "may" in regards to reserve fuel.

I question everything Felixishim posted? Please provide facts on the above statement.

brocklee9000

It's pretty much SOP for airlines to carry just enough for the IFR fuel minimums, maybe a little more. Not saying it's good, or right, but it's what they do. It's expensive to fly with the tanks topped off, if it's not necessary; an airplane at MTOW is going to be able to take off, even in the event of an engine failure, but it'll be lethargic. It takes a lot of energy, thus power/engine performance, to carry all that extra weight up to cruise altitudes.

No, I haven't. It's a name I recognize from this forum, but I'm not really familiar with them. I've never actually seen or met a FTer, as far as I can tell. I'm always on the lookout, especially in SCs, C+ seats, F cabin, etc. Especially when I see a savvy traveller. I'm not entirely sure what to look for physically to identify a FTer, but I would assume there are certain mannerisms, behaviors, and seat choices. And I always keep my ears out for any jargon. But I also don't travel as much as y'all, so I guess it makes sense that I haven't rubbed shoulders with anyone yet (literally, haha).

kettle1

Go to FlyerTalk meet up. I have met many members of FT. I have found many good friends with FT.

So you have stats saying DL under fuels their planes or strives to hit the minimum fuel levels permitted? If you do, please provide these stats, so I can inform the FAA and I will choose another carrier. If not, please do not post false facts. If you do, please provide the evidence.

readywhenyouare

I'm sure you've figured out I'm not a DL cheerleader but I will defend them on this. Delta does not under fuel their aircraft. However they are not going to take on more fuel than is repaired for the trip. Extra fuel equals extra weight and extra weight is expensive. You burn more fuel to carry extra fuel. Extra weight is less efficient. It can even delay the ascent to cruising altitude (also known as a step climb). That extra fuel must be burned off before the aircraft has enough performance to reach its assigned altitude.

brocklee9000

Exactly. I never said they underfuel, that would be breaking the FARs. The aircraft have to be able to meet TERPS climb gradient requirements for the particular departure they're doing, and if it comes down to booting pax or cargo or having less fuel (but still in legal limits), they'll do that, such as the SLC-CDG flight; sometimes in the summer, they lurch off the runway and climb as slow as my flight school trainer aircraft, stop in DTW for fuel, and then continue on. It doesn't even have to be a heavy. The CR2, with 50 pax, an FA, and two pilots plus a jumpseater, can be fairly close to MTOW with the tanks topped off. Weather, engine performance, and many other factors also come into play. You can input an anticipated fuel burn during taxi into the FMS, and even taxi around with the engines spooled up and the spoilers/brakes applied, to help that out. But you're maybe getting a couple hundred pounds out of that. Yet again, on an AF A340, we took off out of DTW, climbed very slow, and leveled off at 3000', and continued for about 10 minutes before proceeding to the low FL300s. We eventually were able to get on up to 350 or 370 by the time I drifted off to sleep.

So yes, I may not have an original copy of a DL manual stipulating exactly how much or little fuel a particular aircraft will carry, but you're kidding yourself if you think every airplane takes off with full fuel. And even those that do (such as a 10 hour TATL) will be running fairly dry when they're landing, and may have the required reserves (enough to fly to the alternate, then 45 minutes after at cruise). Which, on a related note, is one reason CVG was an alternate for DTW. Distance requirements for Part 121 operators really varies, but may be as little as 45 minutes away, but could be significantly greater (in the case of a four-engined airplane) even several hours.

kettle1

So you are saying DL is fueling the AC to safe levels? Thanks for that. I knew that. I just do not understand why people on FT make false claims on stuff they know nothing about. DL, UA, AA, WN and most carriers all over the World are safe. Throwing this airline under the bus with false claims for under-fueling is pure BS.

I will give one example I had about 20 years ago. I was flying from HKT (Phuket, Thailand) to PEN (Penang, Malaysia) on MH and once we were about a mile from touching down, the Pilot shut down both engines and we landed and taxied to the gate. Spot on! It was on a 737. That was Balls!

readywhenyouare

Oh really? May I ask how in the world you taxied to the gate with the engines shut down? Not to mention you need them to run the hydraulic pumps. After landing you would need to stow the slats/flaps and spoilers and that requires the hydraulic pumps running.

I think you may have been enjoying a bit too much of your username on that flight.

If you want a real example of an airline under fueling their aircraft you should read up on ValuJet.