EWR to CLT 737 Fuel Situation

[nycbusdriver]

Seems there was a fuel discrepancy in a 737 flight from EWR to CLT. Somehow it made the Newark newspaper. While certainly worthy of investigation, it is being turned into a major event by some ignorant reporter.

It seems the reporter feels that the airplane would have had a problem stopping if one engine ran out of fuel and the reverse thrust was not available for stopping on landing.

First point, reverse thrust would have been available for the operating engine.

Second point, the use of reverse thrust is NEVER considered in calculating landing distance.

The not-quite-so-full-or-informed story:

Newark Star-Ledger, Sept. 16, 2006

 

[High Iron]

Seems there was a fuel discrepancy in a 737 flight from EWR to CLT. Somehow it made the Newark newspaper. While certainly worthy of investigation, it is being turned into a major event by some ignorant reporter.

It seems the reporter feels that the airplane would have had a problem stopping if one engine ran out of fuel and the reverse thrust was not available for stopping on landing.

First point, reverse thrust would have been available for the operating engine.

Second point, the use of reverse thrust is NEVER considered in calculating landing distance.

The not-quite-so-full-or-informed story:

Newark Star-Ledger, Sept. 16, 2006

"Reverse Thrusters". Nuff said <_<

 

[PHL]

If the light indicating a low fuel situation on one side came on during flight, does the 737-400 allow crossfeeding to balance out the situation? My guess is yes. Next question - was the total combined fuel in the two tanks sufficient for the 2 hour flight? My guess is yes. Nonstory, IMHO.

 

[N924PS]

If the light indicating a low fuel situation on one side came on during flight, does the 737-400 allow crossfeeding to balance out the situation? My guess is yes. Next question - was the total combined fuel in the two tanks sufficient for the 2 hour flight? My guess is yes. Nonstory, IMHO.

The issues would be:

1) Did the flight leave the gate with correct fuel on board?

2) Did the flight takeoff with takeoff minimum fuel on board?

3) Did the crew have the fuel system configured properly during taxi out and flight?

USAirways is in the process of a phased integration US/HP "best practices" revisions to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's). Many items that were previously covered specifically on a checklist are now "memory items" using a flow pattern. Could this be an instance where the barriers of the old checklist would have prevented this incident?

 

[john john]

Verifying the FOB with the Capitan was an original USAir thing that Piedmont mirror imaged during the PI AL merger

 

[2BorNot2B]

Second point, the use of reverse thrust is NEVER considered in calculating landing distance.

It's been a lot of years since "I've been there, done that", but Dispatch was always predicated on operational Thrust Reversers. Hence the requirement for an MEL on an aircraft with an inoperative Reverser.

Reversing on a single engine on a '400 must be done with exteme care, as the yaw produced could send you right off the runway. So landing distance is indeed affected!

Checklist, Checklist, Checklist!!

EdM

 

[2BorNot2B]

The issues would be:

1) Did the flight leave the gate with correct fuel on board?

2) Did the flight takeoff with takeoff minimum fuel on board?

3) Did the crew have the fuel system configured properly during taxi out and flight?

USAirways is in the process of a phased integration US/HP "best practices" revisions to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's). Many items that were previously covered specifically on a checklist are now "memory items" using a flow pattern. Could this be an instance where the barriers of the old checklist would have prevented this incident?

Great Post! I am very interested in your comment about "Memory Items" that are no longer on the Checklist! Checklists always had a "flow pattern" and "memory items" were a definite "no-no". Could you, would you, post a copy of the current '400 Checklist?? (haven't used one in 11 yrs., except in my sleep). <VBG>

EdM

 

[2BorNot2B]

Verifying the FOB with the Capitan was an original USAir thing that Piedmont mirror imaged during the PI AL merger

What ????????????????

 

[N924PS]

Great Post! I am very interested in your comment about "Memory Items" that are no longer on the Checklist! Checklists always had a "flow pattern" and "memory items" were a definite "no-no". Could you, would you, post a copy of the current '400 Checklist?? (haven't used one in 11 yrs., except in my sleep). <VBG>

EdM

I think that is propietary information and can not be placed on a forum such as this without the consent of the company. Sorry.

 

[2BorNot2B]

I think that is propietary information and can not be placed on a forum such as this without the consent of the company. Sorry.

I imagine that is correct! Thanks for the reply!

EdM

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

There isn't a shred of useful information to be gleaned from that p.. poor excuse of a newspaper story. Once a proper investigation yields some reliable facts with a proper context it might be worth debating, but not just yet, in my opinion.

 

[john john]

What ????????????????

Fuel quantity on board is verify by the gate agent with the captain before the aircraft leaves the gate

 

[2BorNot2B]

Fuel quantity on board is verify by the gate agent with the captain before the aircraft leaves the gate

I am well aware of that, and a valuable double check it is! It was the wording of your statement that confused me ..."an original USAir thing that Piedmont mirrored after the merger".

 

[john john]

"an original USAir thing that Piedmont mirrored after the merger".

This is how and were the procedure originated