Airman spots fuel leak on commercial flight

[mmx1]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123149266

courtesy af.mil

by Tech. Sgt. Rey Ramon
18th Wing Public Affairs

5/14/2009 - KADENA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS) -- Most of us hear stories of Airmen saving lives in combat, but an Airman who saves the lives of more than 300 passengers is definitely a story worth hearing.

A fuel leak on a civilian aircraft caught the attention of Staff Sgt. Bartek Bachleda, 909th Air Refueling Squadron boom operator, during a flight from Chicago to Narita airport, Japan. After alerting the pilots and aircrew, the ranking pilot made the decision to divert the flight to San Francisco.

"I noticed the leak on the left side of the aircraft right behind the wing earlier during take-off," said Sergeant Bachleda.

Sergeant Bachleda continued analyzing the outflow of fuel to be 100 percent sure it was a leak while the plane was reaching cruising altitude. Almost an hour into the flight, he told a stewardess of the possible leak, but was given an unconcerned response.

Sergeant Bachleda then began to capture the possible leak on video. He then got the stewardess' attention by saying, "Ma'am it's an emergency." He identified himself to her and showed her the leak on video.

"She was completely serious and was no longer handing out drinks," he said. "I told her you need to inform your captain before we go oceanic."

The captain came from the cockpit to where Sergeant Bachleda was sitting to see the leak and view the video footage. Sergeant Bachleda said the captain and the crew were trying to figure out how the aircraft was losing 6,000 pounds of fuel an hour and then they knew exactly what was going on.

The captain made a mid-air announcement the flight would be diverted back to Chicago, but then changed it to San Francisco so passengers could catch the only existing flight to Narita airport.

Once the flight arrived in San Francisco, Sergeant Bachleda and a coworker were asked to stay back while the aircraft was deplaned. They waited for the arrival of investigators, the fire chief, and the owner of the airport to explain what went wrong.

"When we got off the airplane everyone was thanking us," said the sergeant.

While conversing with the captain, the sergeant said he was hesitant at first to inform them about the leak, but he knew it was abnormal. The captain said they would have never made it to Japan if it wasn't for him.

The two Airmen were placed in a hotel overnight and flew back to Japan the next morning. The airline company showed their appreciation by seating them first-class.

 

[xj220]

Wow, great story. Another example of CRM and being assertive, even if he wasn't in the cockpit.

 

[Bevo16]

The airline company showed their appreciation by seating them first-class.

Those guys had better get free first class tickets for life. They saved the airline tens of millions in equipment and lawsuits.

 

[Rubiks06]

So at what point would the light have gone off in the Captains head that they were a) losing fuel way faster than normal b) not going to make it Japan. The article makes it sound like they knew they were losing it but weren't going to do anything about it? Any of the airline types, how often are fuel checks done? Do you guys still calculate burn rate and fuel remaining in flight? It just seems like they should have known upfront that they were losing fuel at a rate that would have prevented them from making it to Japan.

 

[FlyBoyd]

So at what point would the light have gone off in the Captains head that they were a) losing fuel way faster than normal b) not going to make it Japan. The article makes it sound like they knew they were losing it but weren't going to do anything about it? Any of the airline types, how often are fuel checks done? Do you guys still calculate burn rate and fuel remaining in flight? It just seems like they should have known upfront that they were losing fuel at a rate that would have prevented them from making it to Japan.

I am not an airline pilot but I flew an airliner and here are my thoughts.

The light had already gone off and the Captain and FO were determining the cause of the lower than expected fuel quantity/higher than expected fuel burn. Gauge error is as common on an airliner as your helicopter. You can't see the fuel leaking out of the trailing edge from the cockpit.

The "not going to make it to Japan" is drama introduced by the Captain and the media to sensationalize the story. They were obviously still CONUS and far from "going oceanic." The initial decision/announcement was to divert "back" to Chicago but the Captain elected to continue to SFO (1600 miles from ORD to SFO). Plenty of diverts enroute. It was a fuel leak and it is a problem but, as with most transport aircraft EPs, there is no need to go to Spoolcon Alpha. There is plenty of time to assess the situation a make the appropriate decision with all the information.

FWIW, they probably took off with 200,000-300,000 lbs of gas. Keep those numbers in mind when you think about the 6000 extra per hour. It is important but not "right now" important considering where they were on their flight.

I am not making light of the situation or your questions. 6000lbs of gas is a fair amount for most of the planes in the Navy's inventory so I understand where you are coming from. Most people on this forum won't understand these type of situations. It is the same as me trying to understand an autorotation or a night trap. Also, factor in that when the Captain makes that divert (emergency) decision, he/she gets to answer to the 300 displaced passengers and to the company who has to deal with the 300 disgruntled pax and the PR problems. He didn't take the decision lightly and his ducks were in a row. I imagine it is way harder than answering to the CDO/Skipper when we make the call "because something didn't look right." The headaches caused and the money lost are staggering which is why the Captain is probably one of the more experienced pilots...that is he is a widebody captain flying Chicago to Narita. You don't get there without a few years (and hours) under your belt. I am sure he was conducting fuel checks appropriately.

Once again, no flame intended...just some perspective.

 

[Rubiks06]

No flame taken. I had no idea they took off with that kind of fuel. I mean 6000#'s would take us 6 hours ballpark to burn through let alone 200K. Needless to say not the kinds of fuel burns I am used to thinking about. Thanks for the info.

 

[wlawr005]

I saw a C-5 take 5 of the yellow fuel trucks that fuel us in the hot pits...don't those trucks hold 10K apiece (gallons, not pounds)

 

[Schnugg]

Better than this....video of wheel falling off commuter plane on landing roll out.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/feature?section=news/national_world&id=6815107

 

[Rubiks06]

Damn...down and welded seems so much better than that retractable stuff....

 

[sundevil_av8r]

i believe some (maybe most, i'm not an airline pilot either) FMS systems calculate the fuel required for the remainder of the flight and compare it to what you have on board. if you drop in the red it will alert you. nice thing to have since it makes all the calculations for you.

 

[dexter]

Better than this....video of wheel falling off commuter plane on landing roll out.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/feature?section=news/national_world&id=6815107

never really been a conspiracy guy, but does anyone else think it's a strange coincidence that someone just happened to be videotaping the wheel falling off of this plane the same week that Colgan was getting grilled in a NTSB hearing. I don't know, maybe videotaping landing gear on touchdown is more common than I think but I would think that wheels falling off of the mains on commercial planes doesn't happen very often.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

BZ to the AF guy. You don't hear that from me too often. I also wondered how long the flight crew was going to continue on knowing they were burning more than normal fuel.

 

[mtsupilot09]

That's a great story, +1 to the airmen. Question, though. Who is the airport owner? The story said the airport owner boarded upon landing. If they went to San Fransisco, it would be the City of SF. http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSFO

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Coulda turned out like Air Transat 236

Coulda turned out like Air Transat 236. I'm sure most, if not all of you are familiar with this story. Pretty incredible.

 

[A4sForever]

but an Airman who saves the lives of more than 300 passengers is definitely a story worth hearing...

That's really kinda' a bullshit statement ... but it's typical media stuff ...

REALITY: ORD-NRT is @ 13 hours on any given day in a Boeing 747 or a reasonable facsimile ... @ a rate of overburn of @ 6K/hour ... that's a projected shortfall of @ 78K on arrival @ NRT ...

Translation: you ain't gonna' make it if that overburn continues ...

BUT: why are you burning too much??? What are the flight/dispatch conditions?? The actual winds vs. forecast (flight planned) winds at altitude ... are you heavier than forecast take-off weight (?) ... are you initially flying higher and heavier than flight planned step climb weights (?) ... or, the other side of the coin, were you held down (lower) longer than flight planned and therefore are burning more fuel (?) .... or is it a combination of some/all of the above ???

I wasn't there. BUT: based on a whole bunch of hours crossing and re-crossing 'the Pond" ... all kinds of things go into the equation prior to pulling the plug and landing short/BINGOing somewhere ... if Airman or Seaman Deuce made the difference w/ a 'good call' ... bully for him. I LOVE HIM !!!

Disregarding the peanut gallery -- which, in general, is EVERYTHING between the cockpit door and the tail of the airplane --- a crew checks fuel/fuel burn/projected fuel on arrival at EVERY WAYPOINT !!! The crew has a 'fail-safe' point, fuel wise ... if you don't have the projected flight plan arrival fuel (NRT in this example) by that point -- you go back to the pre-planned 'short' landing point and refuel -- for example, ANC on a ORD-NRT flight. AND ... you'd check MX in this case to see WTF, over ...

Example: what if it's DARK and Airman/Seaman Deuce can't see anything to contribute to the problem ... ??? The cockpit crew is STILL saddled w/ the unexplainable: why are we overburning at such a horrendous rate??? Bring MX onboard @ ANC or wherever ...

ORD-NRT would be taking you over Canada -- think Great Circle flyin' -- so the decision to BINGO so far south of track to SFO would have been a Flt-Ops/Marketing one in all likelihood ... NOT the pilot's (land as soon as practicable situation, in this case?) ... as he COULD have overridden FLT OPS/Marketing (especially Marketing) if required (I have .. ) ... but he better have a good reason and/or a better idea. If the flight could hook-up w/ a company PAX flight in SFO .. it saves a LOT of $$$$$ in hotels and booking if you can get them on a continuing flight. No such PAX flight possibilities in ANC (freight and/or refueling base) ... so go to SEA or SFO. It 'looks like' SEA was not an option, so go to SFO ... stay flexible, keep your head (or your brain, in this case) on a swivel ...

Believe it.