Fuel leak on plane.

166Driver · Post by **166Driver** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:02 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4407767.stm

Do you think suing the passengers is fair? How would you react to seeing fuel leaking from the right wing of a 747?

Post by **martinhodgson** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:05 pm

I wouldn't be too pleased - but then knowing the way these things can be sensationalised it was probably something minor. Th fact it happened twice though does make it seem very odd!

Redbaron · Post by **Redbaron** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:14 pm

It's not exactly something to panic over, over-filled fuel tanks! The other day when I was having a flying lesson the aircraft parked next to us on the apron (C152) was leaking fuel from its overspill duct - it's a common occurence if a fuel tank is filled up to the brim and then the temperature increases, causing the fuel to expand. It has to go somewhere, so aircraft are built with overspill ducts to let the excess fuel out. Nothing to worry about - in fact reassuring because it shows that these things are thought of by aircraft designers!

ianmanson · Post by **ianmanson** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:35 pm

i think Phuket Air should sue the passengers for a variety of reasons, including negative publicity. Its just members of public panicing because they didnt know about something been normal. 152s spill out a lot of fuel if over filled, 747s been a little bit bigger

means more fuel.

Speedbird083 · Post by **Speedbird083** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:13 pm

How couldn't this 747 make it from Bangkok to Gatwick without stopping and, if they knew they'd have a fuel stop in the UAE, why were any of the tanks brim full?

I think I'd of told them to Phuket!

166Driver · Post by **166Driver** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:46 pm

Ordinary passengers probably don't know about these things. If I saw fuel leaking from the wing when I was on a flight, I would kill myself there and then!

I think I'd of told them to Phuket!

ianmanson · Post by **ianmanson** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:42 pm

A classic 747 simply does not have the range when people cram 464 passengers in them, especially with full tanks. London - Sharajah, or Sharajah - Thailand is still a long way for a 450+ seat 747 classic

Speedbird083 · Post by **Speedbird083** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:33 am

Hmm, it was westbound too so winds aloft probably weren't on their side.
Shouldn't be allowed to shoehorn that many people into a 747. If they sue the passengers the passengers should take F'it Airlines to the EU Courts for breach of Human Rights.

Redbaron · Post by **Redbaron** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:01 pm

I think most airline pilots would like to sue passengers just for being passengers! But on the other hand they need them to keep their job! It's just a shame so many passengers seem to be so ignorant of aviation - this problem wouldn't have occured in the first place if the panickers had had any knowledge of aircraft (or at least basic physics).

Speedbird083 · Post by **Speedbird083** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:37 pm

Rather a lot to expect of your customers though. Most couldn't give a toss about what type of aircraft their on let alone understand the fuel systems on a high-bypass turbofan.

I've never been on an overcrowded, fat on fuel 747 but if I had, even with some comprehension about whatâ€™s going on both inside and outside of the airframe, if I saw a stream coming off the wing I think I'd be in two minds as to whether its vortices or something we really should be retaining.

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:06 pm

ianmanson wrote:i think Phuket Air should sue the passengers for a variety of reasons, including negative publicity. Its just members of public panicing because they didnt know about something been normal. 152s spill out a lot of fuel if over filled, 747s been a little bit bigger means more fuel.

But how would passengers know if it was just over-filled? What if there REALLY was a fuel leak?

ianmanson · Post by **ianmanson** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:13 pm

dont take offence to this but it isnt the paxs responsability for a servicable aircraft. it is the airlines and the pilots. If there was REALLY a fuel leak the pilots wouldnt try and get airbourne three times

Redbaron · Post by **Redbaron** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:09 am

Exactly.

CaldRail · Post by **CaldRail** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:44 pm

166Driver wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4407767.stm

Do you think suing the passengers is fair? How would you react to seeing fuel leaking from the right wing of a 747?

I'd probably not notice due the ambient chaos level within the passenger cabin, not to mention the six year old child who thinks my seat resembles a punchbag, the stewardess who insists I ordered service, the faulty headphones, and a moronic family film which has had me comatosed for the past hour.

bigvern · Post by **bigvern** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:39 pm

Surely it is better to err on the side of caution, regardless of who reports the problem and whether the perception is misjudged. From the railway point of view, countless delay minutes are lost each year because a passenger reports a bump or a lurch and when the Per Way go down to the site 99 times out of a 100 find nothing wrong. However on that other one occasion the problem might, just might, be a broken rail or subsidence that could derail the next train if it wasn't being cautioned at reduced speed.

Better safe than sorry and while a derailed train might not incur any fatalities, a 747 taking off with a leak from fully loaded fuel tanks that catches fire is likely to incur 100% casualties on the plane and I daresay a few on the ground. If the plane had exploded on take off and it somehow came to light passengers had tried to report a fuel leak there would now be an international outrage.

Atomic Systems

Fuel leak on plane.

Would you have got on the plane?

Fuel leak on plane.

Re: Fuel leak on plane.