Deplaned for "Lack of Fuel"
Jul 31, 2018, 3:23 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 27,041
A literal reading of the FAR might lead to that conclusion, but a gauge that is inaccurate to the point of compromising the safe operation of the aircraft would not pass certification.
See https://www.av8n.com/fly/fuel-gauges.htm
Jul 31, 2018, 3:51 pm
#17
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,363
Fuel gauges have to be accurate for a flight operated under part 121 rules the FAA applies to scheduled airlines. If a gauge is inaccurate it has to be written up and deferred in the logbook. In that case the aircraft has to be sticked. It’s not a simple dipstick. They are magnasticks that come out the bottom of the tanks. There can be 8 or more sticks that must be pulled and then the pitch and roll of the aircraft read off other gauges. The stick readings and pitch and roll produce a quantity. This has to be crosschecked with the arrival fuel and quantity added. If they match you can depart. Enroute quantity is also monitored by a totalizer using fuel burn. It must work if a gauge is inop.
Well, it was a 767ER which flew with the middle tank empty on this route anyway (and that was the broken gauge). So all they needed was a quick sign off by the mechs that all was OK.
I do wonder if they have a true "empty" detect in addition to the level gauge. Anybody know?
Jul 31, 2018, 5:15 pm
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 36
Why would I bother coming to FT to ask, then? The pilot sounded exasperated. He simply said he was sorry, but we have to deplane due to a lack of fuel. FA's then came on and told everyone to deplane and make their way to Gate A2.
Jul 31, 2018, 8:35 pm
#19
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 858
The link is info for general aviation and has no validity for part 121 airline operations.
Aug 1, 2018, 11:37 pm
#21
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 858
I doubt this is really directly on topic, but I once flew ATL->LAX on a plane with a malfunctioning fuel gauge.
Well, it was a 767ER which flew with the middle tank empty on this route anyway (and that was the broken gauge). So all they needed was a quick sign off by the mechs that all was OK.
I do wonder if they have a true "empty" detect in addition to the level gauge. Anybody know?
Well, it was a 767ER which flew with the middle tank empty on this route anyway (and that was the broken gauge). So all they needed was a quick sign off by the mechs that all was OK.
I do wonder if they have a true "empty" detect in addition to the level gauge. Anybody know?
Aug 2, 2018, 7:31 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Jupiter, FL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium, Hilton Silver
Posts: 29,793
Interesting, just had a friend fly Delta (or should I say attempt to fly) MKE-ATL. They were in line for take off and turned back because the fuel gauges stopped working.
They said they couldn't fly with non working gauges.
In the case of manual measuring, what happens if there is weather/headwinds, etc. that causes more fuel consumption while flying? Measuring at the beginning doesn't help in flight and they do not fill the tanks to the tops in all flights.
They said they couldn't fly with non working gauges.
In the case of manual measuring, what happens if there is weather/headwinds, etc. that causes more fuel consumption while flying? Measuring at the beginning doesn't help in flight and they do not fill the tanks to the tops in all flights.
Aug 2, 2018, 9:27 am
#23
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: flyover country
Posts: 2,434
Manual measuring should give an accurate quantity of fuel on board. During flight, the pilots should be watching the fuel consumption rates, so they will know how much fuel is left. If it gets too low, they divert.
Aug 2, 2018, 10:09 am
#24
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Programs: DL-Platinum / AS-PlatPro / Hyatt - Glob / Hilton-Diamond
Posts: 1,573
[QUOTE=pbiflyer;30038987
In the case of manual measuring, what happens if there is weather/headwinds, etc. that causes more fuel consumption while flying? Measuring at the beginning doesn't help in flight and they do not fill the tanks to the tops in all flights.[/QUOTE]
The flight plan, which is calculated about an hour and half before departure, will have determined the required "departure fuel" amount for today's flight. It includes the effects of winds and weather in today's forecasts.
The flight plan not only gives a total required fuel, but breaks the flight into segments with several checkpoints along the way. Each segment lists the time and fuel to fly that segment and most also show total time & fuel used since takeoff and/or or time & fuel needed to destination. Between fuel gauges, the fuel totalizers (how much fuel have we pumped into the engines so far) and the clock, the pilots can get a feel for how close the flight plan estimates are to matching reality.
Airlines can't just casually decide to fly an aircraft with a component "broken". Each airline has an FAA approved "Minimum Equipment List" (MEL) which is a huge book. It lists each component on the plane that is not considered a "no go" item. Most components also have additional requirements that have to be met to be able to still operate the airplane. IE: some fuel related components might require "x" amount of fuel above and beyond what the original flight plan estimated. Back to the OP, my guess is that some component failing pre-flight checks caused the "lack of fuel" for a flight that was already boarding ... that "extra" fuel required to satisfy the MEL might have made the plane over weight, thus it was easier to swap planes.
In the case of manual measuring, what happens if there is weather/headwinds, etc. that causes more fuel consumption while flying? Measuring at the beginning doesn't help in flight and they do not fill the tanks to the tops in all flights.[/QUOTE]
The flight plan, which is calculated about an hour and half before departure, will have determined the required "departure fuel" amount for today's flight. It includes the effects of winds and weather in today's forecasts.
The flight plan not only gives a total required fuel, but breaks the flight into segments with several checkpoints along the way. Each segment lists the time and fuel to fly that segment and most also show total time & fuel used since takeoff and/or or time & fuel needed to destination. Between fuel gauges, the fuel totalizers (how much fuel have we pumped into the engines so far) and the clock, the pilots can get a feel for how close the flight plan estimates are to matching reality.
Airlines can't just casually decide to fly an aircraft with a component "broken". Each airline has an FAA approved "Minimum Equipment List" (MEL) which is a huge book. It lists each component on the plane that is not considered a "no go" item. Most components also have additional requirements that have to be met to be able to still operate the airplane. IE: some fuel related components might require "x" amount of fuel above and beyond what the original flight plan estimated. Back to the OP, my guess is that some component failing pre-flight checks caused the "lack of fuel" for a flight that was already boarding ... that "extra" fuel required to satisfy the MEL might have made the plane over weight, thus it was easier to swap planes.
Aug 2, 2018, 2:15 pm
#25
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 36
The flight plan, which is calculated about an hour and half before departure, will have determined the required "departure fuel" amount for today's flight. It includes the effects of winds and weather in today's forecasts.
The flight plan not only gives a total required fuel, but breaks the flight into segments with several checkpoints along the way. Each segment lists the time and fuel to fly that segment and most also show total time & fuel used since takeoff and/or or time & fuel needed to destination. Between fuel gauges, the fuel totalizers (how much fuel have we pumped into the engines so far) and the clock, the pilots can get a feel for how close the flight plan estimates are to matching reality.
Airlines can't just casually decide to fly an aircraft with a component "broken". Each airline has an FAA approved "Minimum Equipment List" (MEL) which is a huge book. It lists each component on the plane that is not considered a "no go" item. Most components also have additional requirements that have to be met to be able to still operate the airplane. IE: some fuel related components might require "x" amount of fuel above and beyond what the original flight plan estimated. Back to the OP, my guess is that some component failing pre-flight checks caused the "lack of fuel" for a flight that was already boarding ... that "extra" fuel required to satisfy the MEL might have made the plane over weight, thus it was easier to swap planes.
The flight plan not only gives a total required fuel, but breaks the flight into segments with several checkpoints along the way. Each segment lists the time and fuel to fly that segment and most also show total time & fuel used since takeoff and/or or time & fuel needed to destination. Between fuel gauges, the fuel totalizers (how much fuel have we pumped into the engines so far) and the clock, the pilots can get a feel for how close the flight plan estimates are to matching reality.
Airlines can't just casually decide to fly an aircraft with a component "broken". Each airline has an FAA approved "Minimum Equipment List" (MEL) which is a huge book. It lists each component on the plane that is not considered a "no go" item. Most components also have additional requirements that have to be met to be able to still operate the airplane. IE: some fuel related components might require "x" amount of fuel above and beyond what the original flight plan estimated. Back to the OP, my guess is that some component failing pre-flight checks caused the "lack of fuel" for a flight that was already boarding ... that "extra" fuel required to satisfy the MEL might have made the plane over weight, thus it was easier to swap planes.
Aug 7, 2018, 9:24 am
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 36
Had a CSM call me just now to apologize for the deplane situation. They said that the middle fuel tank was nearly empty and the mistake shouldn't ever have made it so far that the Captain would be the one to find it. The issue has already been highly escalated, according to her, and she had other notes related to the gate move and customer service. Obviously they received a ton of complaints because she mentioned a lot of the other issues that I didn't even reference in my original complaint.
Anyway, she said a situation like this is extremely rare and that she believes it is something I am highly unlikely to ever experience again. Lol.
Anyway, she said a situation like this is extremely rare and that she believes it is something I am highly unlikely to ever experience again. Lol.