Did A United 787 Really Almost Run Out Of Fuel?

It also could have left with less than the required fuel.

The Australian mainstream media love beating up any aviation dramas.

Anytime a Qantas plane diverts (even for a medical emergency), it's headline news.

You’re over sensationalizing it as well. But, that’s normal for this blog these days.

Australia has a nanny state culture, hence the roads shutdown

I love it when airlines load a small additional buffet, makes for a really yummy flight!

Lucky says:
"Generally speaking airlines will only load as much fuel as they have to, which would be the projected fuel burn plus minimal reserves, plus a small additional buffet."

I not sure how a small buffet -- no doubt intended for the Polaris passengers -- helps with the fuel. I think you meant to say buffer. Usually I don't pay attention to typos but I couldn't resist pointing out this one

also worth noting that there may have been more of a mechanical issue here as they delayed the following traffic in so they could inspect the runway expecting "a leak of gas" see 3:50 into the video

Sorry, I'm chuckling at the typo under "Why didn't the plane have more fuel." A380s must gorge at a buffet. 787s nibble on tapas. I think you meant buffer, but in context, buffet is almost correct.

All that matters is the airline saves/makes money
If they lose a plane full of passenger no big deal
There are many others that don't fall out of the sky

The plane probably had slightly more drag than normal due to a mechanical issue but not enough of a problem to trip a sensor. United has no idea what happened until they look at the plane and may have claimed mechanical as a default since it covers nearly every issue that would cause this

AA 73, also a B787-9 flying from LAX to SYD on October 2nd, diverted to HNL when it was approximately 800nm SSE of the Hawaiian Islands.

Needs better clickbaity title

Just going to leave this here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW_42xmcsBU

A plan needs to have enough fuel at takeoff to reach its alternate airport (if original not available) plus 30-45 minutes. All required in case communications breakdown and the pilot can't communicate with control.

And did anyone listen to the tape? Controller said it was leaking fuel and the runway would need to be checked.

"also worth noting that there may have been more of a mechanical issue here as they delayed the following traffic in so they could inspect the runway expecting “a leak of gas” see 3:50 into the video"

The controller clearly says "I just need to leave a bit of gap" at 3:54. The transcript is wrong

It is useful to keep in mind that the audio you hear on ATC isn't the only communication that pilots and the tower have with each other and with "company" (literally their company, in this case United). It is likely the pilots were on the phone with United mechanics and that the information they figured out may have been communicated with the tower via phone.

Michael says:
October 4, 2018 at 2:34 pm
AA 73, also a B787-9 flying from LAX to SYD on October 2nd, diverted to HNL when it was approximately 800nm SSE of the Hawaiian Islands.

This was reported as a Medical diversion, nothing to do with fuel issues.

Sydney Airport would most likely of made a fortune out of billing United for the situation hence the possible big reaction but when it comes to human safety there should be no shortcuts taken. All procedures must be followed, too much at stake... Lives, careers, equipment, money... lol. Plus the Australian media love bashing airlines (fact)

I’m pretty sure it was UA839 for starters.

And my educated guess is there was a change in the TAF between departure and arrival and the flight was now no longer carrying the ‘new’ minimum required fuel.

It’s incumbent on the airline to divert and uplift the new required fuel (inter or tempo requirement, perhaps some additional traffic holding on top of that) - but this can create additional problems (crew hours, missed connections, downline dealys - outbound crew may have already been at SYD)

Perhaps there WAS an engineering issue that had they landed elsewhere they couldn’t have redeparted so coupled with being below the new min fuel requirement a MAYDAY was declared.

I know of no pilot in the world who would declare a MAYDAY out of convenience only - so i would say a number of factors have contributed here.

It was a United Airlines plane. I would not put anything past them. They lie to their passengers repeatedly on the ground, why not in the air, too?

Suggesting United are lying to the media in an attempt to distract investigators from the reason for the low fuel is absolutely absurd.

It's also rather insulting to the investigators - you REALLY think the main focus of their investigation will be looking at United media statements and blindly accepting anything inside them?

This making the news also doesn't mean it's "gone viral". It hasn't gone viral, it's just been reported on.

I am ex Australian air traffic control so have som knowledge.

It was UA839 from San Francisco not Los Angeles.

Sydney had major storms that were heavier than forecast and aircraft had stronger than forecast headwinds for last couple of hours.

Required to have 45minutes reserve fuel on landing or declare emergency which aircraft did. When landed had 39 minutes.

Pilots had been recalculating regularly and when figure got close to 45 min requirement acted accordingly. ATC and airport went with standard emergency procedures as safety comes first. It s why Australia is a leader in Aviation safety. Airport closed roads arounnd for less than 5 minutes. Very little affect on operations

It’s been all over the local news down here in Sydney, but not many facts have been reported

For sure it's a beat-up by the media ( a quiet October Thursday in the break between football and cricket seasons, parliament not in session, no other dramas). So of course they will go for it.
As for the reaction, I prefer that authorities take the mayday declaration seriously, including closing of roads around the airport. Better that than ending up with something like the Avianca crash in New York ( ran out of fuel and crashed into the river during confusion in discussions with ATC over fuel levels, priority landing, emergency or not; most died in the crash).

Aniljak, you may be ex ATC, but UA839 is a LAX-SYD service, it doesn't originate in SFO.

SFO-SYD is UA863, which landed on runway 16L.

This has been all over the press and TV in Australia, they love a good drama. Shutting down the roads around the airport just because the pilot had a hot date and needed to land immediately, love it.

I am pretty sure if it was a serious emergency the aircraft would be going direct, not via the STAR. STARs or Standard Terminal Arrivals are used to separate traffic and incorporate heading, altitude and airspeed restrictions. In a serious fuel emergency they would be traveling direct to the airport to minimize time in the air.

It's not nothing. A fuel mayday is highly unusual for a competent airline, crew and airframe. If Aniljak is correct, that is reassuring. But regardless of weather somebody f'd up. Winds aloft on this route are hardly a secret. To say there is nothing to see here is completely ludicrous and devalues your commentary.

@Lucky
It's "Pan-pan" not "Pan". There's also "Securité", which is a lower urgency call, IIRC.

Can anyone clarify why this flight didn’t divert to Brisbane which is enroute and some 50 minutes shorter flight time? Running fuel reserves down to a Mayday trigger level suggests United Operations made the call in the interests of scheduling (aka profits).

@K. #findanotherblogbitch

Lucky, remember UAL flies under FAA regulations for flight planning/fuel requirements. The other unknown is what their op specs says and what exemptions they may have as well. This whole story is way more complicated than everyone realizes

-FAA licensed dispatcher

@Nick, pilots do not call the tower on the phone. All is done on recorded frequencies only, so as to have it all "on tape" in case of a lawsuit.

I flew UA Melbourne to LAX, and watched the very bright blue Paciifc Ocean almost all the time on the flight monitor. These are NOT flights you'd choose for running out of fuel. Give me NYC to LAX instead, please!

Ben,
It just happened again with United UA101 (16-Jan-2020). However, this time they were so low on fuel they diverted to New Zealand Auckland airport where passengers had to disembark for 10 hours. United also changed the aircraft, pilots, and crew!

And happened Friday 24 on UA839. Divert to CBR as low fuel after short holding pattern outside SYD.

It seems airlines generally have minimum legal amount of fuel loaded and UA cuts it very fine.