Video: Us Airways Airbus A330 W/ATC

[Chris McD]

First post! While not exactly news, I figured many of you Us Airways fans would enjoy watching this Us Airways A330 departing Logan Airport after a rare appearance to the airport for fuel. I included the ATC recording for listening pleasure .

​

 

[700UW]

Where was it from and where was it going and why did it need a fuel stop?

 

[GuntherA320]

Where was it from and where was it going and why did it need a fuel stop?

It was going from FRA to CLT on the 26th of May. Apparently it needed more fuel due to thunderstorms all down the East coast that day.

 

[700UW]

Thank you

 

[Travelpro72]

For fuel? Oh that was the reason? Uh huh!

 

[Phoenix]

It was going from FRA to CLT on the 26th of May. Apparently it needed more fuel due to thunderstorms all down the East coast that day.

What do you think.... did the captain ask to tanker some fuel for T-Storms and get told he was being too cautious? Or was the company using the fuel saving trick of filing primary to Boston with a divert to CLT if able ? .... In Air Force fuel school they taught me that the fuel savings I gain, by cutting fuel loads to the minimum on every flight over a twenty year career, are immediately eliminated by one divert (but that was back when I could fill up my car at the local Texaco for 23 cents a gallon ) .

Kudos to the captain, crew, and dispatcher.

 

[A320 Driver]

FRA - CLT is a little tight on fuel. FRA fills the airplane up with cargo. Last time I flew that flight we were limited to 240 passengers, down from 288. We still took off at maximum gross weight.

Driver B)

 

[prechilill]

Boy, with all those captains up front it sure turned out nice!

 

[No Land Green]

FRA - CLT is a little tight on fuel. FRA fills the airplane up with cargo. Last time I flew that flight we were limited to 240 passengers, down from 288. We still took off at maximum gross weight.

Driver B)

LOL, you understand it Driver. Flying across the pond for over six years, there is always the potential for making a fuel stop, I've done it more than once.

 

[nycbusdriver]

What do you think.... did the captain ask to tanker some fuel for T-Storms and get told he was being too cautious? Or was the company using the fuel saving trick of filing primary to Boston with a divert to CLT if able ? .... In Air Force fuel school they taught me that the fuel savings I gain, by cutting fuel loads to the minimum on every flight over a twenty year career, are immediately eliminated by one divert (but that was back when I could fill up my car at the local Texaco for 23 cents a gallon ) .

Kudos to the captain, crew, and dispatcher.

Who knows exactly what happened? I can probably state with much certainty that this scenario is reasonably accurate:

First, I have never been questioned, or second guessed, by a US Airways dispatcher when I have requested more fuel than he thought was adequate in the flight plan. Since the "Fuel School" debacle, the dispatchers are indeed very vocally co-operative in this regard. I sincerely doubt that the captain was given any difficulty. Given the information in the planning room in FRA, the captain and dispatcher obviously agreed on the fuel load that was used departing FRA. That meeting of the minds took place at least 7 or 8 hours before the airplane got close to BOS. Spring/summer weather on the east coast can change significantly in that amount of time. Forecasts often change during that period. Winds aloft forecasts may have been inaccurate. A lot of factors could have changed enroute that made the decision to stop in BOS for fuel as wise one.

What they taught you in the Air Force was wrong. I can say that; I was an Air Force pilot, too. Not that I think cutting fuel loads to the minimum on every flight is necessarily a great idea, either.

That fuel savings "trick" you are talking about is known as a "Rerelease Flight Plan." It is the industry standard, happens on virtually every transatlantic flight with every airline, and it does save a lot of fuel without compromising safety. The one downside of that system is that is does rarely cause a flight to land SAFELY with plenty of fuel at the "released" airport...in this case it was likely BOS.

This BOS diversion was a non-event; a fine video of the system working exactly as intended.

 

[crazystnic]

Who knows exactly what happened? I can probably state with much certainty that this scenario is reasonably accurate:

First, I have never been questioned, or second guessed, by a US Airways dispatcher when I have requested more fuel than he thought was adequate in the flight plan. Since the "Fuel School" debacle, the dispatchers are indeed very vocally co-operative in this regard. I sincerely doubt that the captain was given any difficulty. Given the information in the planning room in FRA, the captain and dispatcher obviously agreed on the fuel load that was used departing FRA. That meeting of the minds took place at least 7 or 8 hours before the airplane got close to BOS. Spring/summer weather on the east coast can change significantly in that amount of time. Forecasts often change during that period. Winds aloft forecasts may have been inaccurate. A lot of factors could have changed enroute that made the decision to stop in BOS for fuel as wise one.

What they taught you in the Air Force was wrong. I can say that; I was an Air Force pilot, too. Not that I think cutting fuel loads to the minimum on every flight is necessarily a great idea, either.

That fuel savings "trick" you are talking about is known as a "Rerelease Flight Plan." It is the industry standard, happens on virtually every transatlantic flight with every airline, and it does save a lot of fuel without compromising safety. The one downside of that system is that is does rarely cause a flight to land SAFELY with plenty of fuel at the "released" airport...in this case it was likely BOS.

This BOS diversion was a non-event; a fine video of the system working exactly as intended.

((((((((((((((((((

Hey my buddy is in ATC in BOS tower.. he makes 175 K per year.. ..good for him.

 

[Phoenix]

...

First, I have never been questioned, or second guessed, by a US Airways dispatcher when I have requested more fuel than he thought was adequate in the flight plan. Since the "Fuel School" debacle, the dispatchers are indeed very vocally co-operative in this regard. I sincerely doubt that the captain was given any difficulty.

That's great to hear.

...

What they taught you in the Air Force was wrong. I can say that; I was an Air Force pilot, too. Not that I think cutting fuel loads to the minimum on every flight is necessarily a great idea, either.

That was just a hyperbole we used to push back on the dispatchers that gave us crap about our fuel loads. Even if a dispatcher were to refuse to agree to the the captain's stated fuel requirement, it in no way prevents a safe flight. Decades ago I had a dispatcher refuse to give me more than 10 minutes of extra fuel for T-storms on an 11 hour flight. I accepted the flight because technically the fuel load was legal, but after I finished my call with him I called an enroute Island FBO and asked them if they would be able to sell me 80,000 lbs of fuel in about 6 hours. They were ecstatic and it was great for us to discover we had to make a lunch stop when we dropped below min fuel somewhere high above the Titanic, so to speak.

Again like I said, kudos to the captain, crew, and dispatcher.