Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

QF 94 diverted back to LAX instead of HNL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • QF 94 diverted back to LAX instead of HNL

    Hi everyone,

    A few days ago, on April 18, QF 94 diverted back to LAX when it was nearly over Hawaii. I'm just wondering what would cause them to fly back to LAX when they were so close to HNL? It couldn't have been a medical diversion, otherwise they would definitely have diverted to HNL. Maybe a mechanical problem that could be best fixed in LAX rather than HNL? Can HNL not handle an A380?



    -Rene Trujillo

  • #2
    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

    A Qantas Airbus A380-800, registration VH-OQK performing flight QF-94 (scheduled dep Apr 17th, actual dep Apr 18th) from Los Angeles,CA (USA) to Melbourne,VI (Australia), was enroute at FL340 about 150nm north of Honolulu,HI (USA) when a second fuel pump failed prompting the crew to abort the Pacific crossing and return to Los Angeles for a safe landing about 9:20 hours after departure.

    The flight is currently expected to reach Melbourne with a delay of 36 hours.

    Passengers reported the crew announced two fuel pumps in one fuel tank had failed.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, that's quite the ironing..."we better make a precautionary landing so let's by-pass Hawaii and go 5 hours back to LA"

      I guess it might be something to the effect that there was adequate 'gas' in the 'main tanks' to go back, but not forward, with the fuel problem being in the 'auxs'.

      ...and...just a judgement call, but I'm most certain HNL could handle an A-380 landing and even taxi it somewhere...though it might clog up a couple gates.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        Yes, that's quite the ironing..."we better make a precautionary landing so let's by-pass Hawaii and go 5 hours back to LA"

        I guess it might be something to the effect that there was adequate 'gas' in the 'main tanks' to go back, but not forward, with the fuel problem being in the 'auxs'.

        ...and...just a judgement call, but I'm most certain HNL could handle an A-380 landing and even taxi it somewhere...though it might clog up a couple gates.
        I believe QF has a maintenance center at LAX, probably easier to fix there.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
          I believe QF has a maintenance center at LAX, probably easier to fix there.
          This kind of sidesteps the safety issue. There may not have been one- but the few from the parlour is that they needed to land for safety sake, but risked going back when Hawaii was right there.

          If the plane is flying that good- why not go on?

          Look- I get it- you have this air-tight decision tree and safety was not compromised in any way and God forbid the media realize that this was a total non issue that the masses need not hear about...

          But...Enquiring minds at quirky aviation discussion forums want to know a little more...[Rampant, uninformed speculation] "Oh, we have to go back and fix something that sounds important for safety?- but we won't land at Hawaii? Because we are too cheap to pay the parking fee and take the plane out of service while we fly mechanics and fuel pumps there???[/speculation]

          What's the reality?
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            The situation doesn't seem that difficult to me 3WE. You've pretty much named the circumstances in which you would return to LAX.

            Flight continuation to Australia is then not practical - not enough fuel.

            However, more than sufficient fuel available to return to either HNL or LAX.

            HNL you guarantee a handling nightmare. Limited hotels, no crews, no A380 maintenance. However, if necessary for safety reasons, thats where you go. Qantas have taken A380's in there over the last few years for various reasons from mechanical to medical.

            LAX you have engineers, and more importantly access to crew to take the aircraft when it is fixed.

            In this circumstance, it would be entirely reasonable to return to LAX.

            Not all issues that prevent long period continuation of flight make it necessary to land straight away!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MCM View Post
              ...Flight continuation to Australia is then not practical - not enough fuel.

              However, more than sufficient fuel available to return to either HNL or LAX....
              When I said it, it was pure, unsubtantiated, ass-hat, parlour, speculation.

              When you said it it was a good, confirmation from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

              Thanks.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment

              Working...
              X