Easyjet - overfuelled - 37 told to get off (Merged)

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 1,022

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12157763

Beggars belief - wouldn't it have been easier to defuel rather than go through this hassle? :confused:

Original post

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 157

You can't just "de-fuel" as you need an empty bowser to put the fuel in to, and then that can't be used except on the same aircraft when it gets back. Hence much cheaper to kick people off.

Not convinced by the story though, do EZY even fly to Birmingham!?

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 554

Out of interest, which regulation says that defuelled fuel must be returned to the same aircraft?

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 157

Honestly, not a clue! It's how it works (Worked?) at Manchester though.

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 2,623

Chris

Are you saying dispatch is in charge of what is loaded onto the aircraft fuel wise? Are you saying dispatch has the bigger picture regards to weather at destination and destination alternates etc?

Nonsense

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 157

Well, easyJet loadsheets have the fuel loads on them, the FD crew can add/subtract to that, but how much more fuel is needed to have to offload 37 pax + baggage?

The ACARS system on the A319 allows crews to send the weather and load figures to dispatch, they then compute the figures and send it back. Or so I was told when speaking to a First Officer not long ago :)

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 2,623

Every Airline's loadsheets have the Fuel figures on them. They can only LMC +/- 300kg from this figure before a new loadsheet is required.

The ACARS system is not used to send weather to dispatch, it's the other way around. The weather is obtained from the ACARS system for the flight crew to digest. The weather is totally irrelevant to a flight dispatcher.

What fuel is loaded onto an aircraft is a command decision, not a dispatch decision. What the dispatcher can do though is see what the underload is for a flight, (but only when the flight is closed) and if the commander wants more fuel the dispatcher can ensure they are still on or under weight. The dispatcher will not decide what fuel the aircraft takes - period.

There are many reasons for too much fuel being loaded onto an aircraft to make it overweight. Such reasons can be the refueller misheard what was told him (yes this does happen) and loads a different fuel figure. You can plan for a certain amount of fuel for a trip, then once the fuel is on be told that for whatever reason there are alot more passengers getting on because of a tech or cancelled flight (this happens alot). Plus many other reasons. It is never as black and white as the media make it out to be, and anyone who believes this kind of hysteria needs their heads read.

Dean

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 157

Thanks, no doubt I was being "fobbed off" with a much more basic, yet incorrect, version of how things work :)

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

... do EZY even fly to Birmingham!?

I think it appears on their timetable as "New York".

The coach transfer from the airport is quite arduous though.

Moggy

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 2,623

As far as de-fueling is concerned you don't need an empty bowser to do this, just one with enough space required to take it out. The reason it can never be taken out is because once it passes through the refuel truck to the aircraft the fuel is deemed 2 things, 1) it belongs to the airline now, and 2) it's now contaminated. So unless there is a spare fuel truck hanging around to take the fuel out it will never happen. At most large airfields (MAN LGW LHR CDG AMS etc) the fuel is not contained in the actual fuel truck anyway.

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 8,847

At most large airfields (MAN LGW LHR CDG AMS etc) the fuel is not contained in the actual fuel truck anyway.

I am sure that everyone on the Forum, but not the general public or reporters, knows that the fuel doesn't come out of the bowser into the plane, it is pumped up from the ground (via the storage tanks) so is the bowser empty or full? If the truck was empty, why not use a smaller vehicle which would basically just be a pump on wheels? :confused:

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 2,623

Because the trucks belong to the fuel companies, not the airlines. If the fuel is on the aircraft it belongs to the airline. Why would any fuel company allow their trucks to be used as a holding tank for someone else's fuel?

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 408

As far as de-fueling is concerned you don't need an empty bowser to do this, just one with enough space required to take it out. The reason it can never be taken out is because once it passes through the refuel truck to the aircraft the fuel is deemed 2 things, 1) it belongs to the airline now, and 2) it's now contaminated. So unless there is a spare fuel truck hanging around to take the fuel out it will never happen. At most large airfields (MAN LGW LHR CDG AMS etc) the fuel is not contained in the actual fuel truck anyway.

My 2 pennith to elaborate

(with the possible exception of back on the same aircraft assuming the vessel it was off loaded to was deemed ok)

That Fuel cannot go any where but waste as it is classed as contaminated it cannot go onto another aircraft or be returned to storage.

the tanker would also be classed as contaminated so even once it had offloaded it could not be used for another task (except waste fuel) until it was re-verified

It probaly all things considered was cheaper to dump passengers.

I dont know birmingham at all is it a short runway, or had they greatly exceeded mtwa (lbs / kilos confused anyone)

I appreciate the news says to heavy to fly but quite frankly its usually ill informed sound bites.

im suprised an A320 n

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

Why would any fuel company allow their trucks to be used as a holding tank for someone else's fuel?

Customer service, to give competitive advantage in the marketplace?

Well, you did ask.

Moggy

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 2,623

My 2 pennith to elaborate

(with the possible exception of back on the same aircraft assuming the vessel it was off loaded to was deemed ok)

That Fuel cannot go any where but waste as it is classed as contaminated it cannot go onto another aircraft or be returned to storage.

the tanker would also be classed as contaminated so even once it had offloaded it could not be used for another task (except waste fuel) until it was re-verified

I thought that's what I said in a nutshell.

Moggy - Well yes you have a point ;)

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 13

its seems a bit odd to me.....10 tons, is that not rather a lot??? one of my colleagues is quoted saying it only takes 4 tons to go from birmingham to geneva so to load an extra 10 tons seems an unbelievable gaff by someone!

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 2,623

wesley

You are right, because the figures don't add up. They offloaded 37 passengers. Using standard passenger weights that airlines use, even if they were all males this would only equate to 3.25 tonnes. factor in a couple of bags each at standard weights and you are looking in total about 4.36 tonnes. Quite where they got 10 tonnes from is anyone's guess. It is the media afterall. Mustn't let the truth get in the way of a good story :rolleyes:

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 408

I thought that's what I said in a nutshell.

Moggy - Well yes you have a point ;)

possibly I missread slightly, but i was trying to add youd knacker a tanker as well short term.

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 1,684

Do I read from this mostly useful set of posts ?

Do I read from this mostly useful set of posts ? .....

1. This wasn't an emergency obviously by strict definition - an overweight aircraft deemed unsafe for take off.

2. The fuel once on the aircraft is the property of the airline. Therefore it cannot be returned to fuel trucks as they and the fuel in them (if they have any at all) are the property of the fuel owners.

3. The fuel trucks are simply 'pumping' devices between underground fuel storage tanks and pipes with safety shut off valves and receiving aircraft.

4. It's better to give the passengers the 'big e' with meagre compensation (if any) rather than have a spare aircraft fly them to their destination 'pronto' (like BA used to do with their shuttle services for overflow passengers)

LCA are definitely off my tolerance limits as this shows their attitude to passengers even though the overloading of fuel was most likely the airline's fault.

Aviation fuel if dumped (anywhere) in an emergency while in flight is okay but in the situation that presented (non emergency on ground) there was no where to dump it without everyone being accused of pollution.

Isn't this a scenario that has surely presented before, and in one extreme case in point ended in a tragedy most of us in this forum lament?