Northwest A320 overflies destination by 150 miles . . .

[Jastapilot]

probably tankered fuel .

Probably.

[Jastapilot]

Beyond the obvious that they would have to have onboard the required extra fuel for possible diversion AND the stated tailwind was higher than expected, the flight might have fuel arrangements to take on a larger load at previous airports from preferred distributors, lower fuel cost at previous airport refuelers, lower than expected final aircraft weight reducing overall fuel burn during the flight, a desire to reduce refuelling time along the way by taking a larger load at a previous stop. There are many reasons why the fuel load might be a bit high by your estimate but that doesn't imply there was anything wrong with the stated balance. Are you running their dispatch? As a pilot, how many A320 flights have you flown? Just because you state you've never flown with more than 20 minutes difference between flight planned and actual onboard fuel doesn't mean everyone does it that way. I have a few stories of pilots landing way past their planned enroute time and it's a good thing they overdid it with regards to their onboard fuel load.

Based on your response, unless you're dispatching for NW maybe you should also keep your opinion to yourself. There's no need to be a jackass, man, we're all just trying to figure out wtf happened on that flight deck. Some of us would like to learn from it, not get into a pissing contest. Yes, they could have tankered, but I didn't consider that because I would have thought that didn't happen in the US very often. Also, my comment on landing fuel vs the flight plan stands, but I guess you missed the point I was making was it was probably flight planned to land with that much fuel, and I was wondering why. I promise you it was no accident(if that number was accurate) because the a320 doesn't have the legs to have a flight be in the air long enough for even a 100kt difference in wind affect the fuel burn that much. Cheers.

[GilletteNorth]

Talk about being a jackass... you said you're the 705 pilot and you are the one challenging me to come up with a plausible reason why there was 11,000 lbs fuel onboard at landing. Who is the one making an opinion?

This kind of smells to me. No airline dispatcher these days would be just throwing on 2 hours of additional fuel for no reason, unless this number is BS.

Apparently the airline dispatcher did put extra fuel on board, but you don't know exactly why. You have the opinion that it "smells"... based on what and why? If you are 'just inquiring', why don't you just ask "Why did they land with 11,000?" I'd like to know what you think you are going to learn from finding out why they had some extra fuel on board? I'd like to know what's bad about them having a bit extra on board? Yes I know fuel = weight = cost but unlike your tale of never having extra on board during your own flights do you find it unacceptable that anyone else might take on more fuel than the absolute minimum?

What I think you want to hear is that the plane landed with alot less than 11,000 lbs of fuel left in the tanks. Then everyone could continue saying how irresponsible the crew was. How close they came to catastrophe. Then there would be justification for the comments about recklessness. The narrative doesn't support them having done anything so irregular from a normal flight that it's hard to keep vilifying this crew... when the same thing can easily happen to anyone else. They turn out to just be... normal.

As for your comment jastapilot, follow your own advice...

maybe you should also keep your opinion (see the above quote) to yourself

.

[Jastapilot]

Once again you misread and misinterpret my meaning. What 'smells' to me is the story, not the 11000 lbs.
You seem to be too busy jumping on my back to properly read my posts. Jackass.

[GilletteNorth]

What 'smells' to me is the story, not the 11000 lbs

You posted your opinion that something was smelly about there being 11,000 lbs of fuel onboard and I questioned why. You do remember that you posted this:

They landed with 11,000 pounds of fuel

Were there weather problems dictating major fuel uplift for a distant alternate? This kind of smells to me. No airline dispatcher these days would be just throwing on 2 hours of additional fuel for no reason, unless this number is BS

I don't know how you can say I'm the one misinterpreting comments when your original post specifically addresses the fuel onboard and includes a previous quote directly referring to the amount. But now you want to say it's 'their story' that smells, not the 11,000 lbs of fuel. Fine, but you should go back and read your OWN posts before you try and backpedal. BTW, you are the one turning a discussion into a pissing contest when you call me a jackass. Or can't you discuss something without calling people names? After all, we're all trying to learn something from this... aren't we?

You either can't properly describe what you mean or you don't understand it yourself. Either way, I wasn't trying to 'jump on your back'... I really did want to know from your original post what was suspicious about landing with extra fuel from your point of view... but now I don't care because you are jastapilot.

[GilletteNorth]

AVFLASH NEWS
December 9, 2009
Northwest Flight 188 Pilots Blame ATC Email this article |Print this article
By Mary Grady, Contributing editor

The Northwest Airlines pilots whose FAA certificates were revoked after they overflew their intended destination with a planeload of passengers have appealed to the NTSB for a review, and both cited failures by air traffic control as a "causal or contributing cause" in the incident. Capt. Timothy Cheney, 54, of Gig Harbor, Wash., and First Officer Richard Cole, 54, of Salem, Ore., stated in documents filed with the NTSB that controllers didn't follow rules and practices as described in the FAA's ATC manual and failed to coordinate effectively with Northwest dispatchers. National Air Traffic Controllers Association spokesman Doug Church told the Associated Press he couldn't comment on the matter because NATCA is a party to the ongoing NTSB investigation. Cole also said he shouldn't take a full share of the blame since he relied on Cheney to take responsibility for the flight as the flying pilot. Both pilots said that since they filed reports about the incident with NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System, sanctions should be waived.

The pilots were flying an Airbus A320 on Oct. 21 when they stopped responding to radio calls and text messages, and overflew their destination by about 150 miles before turning around and landing safely. They said they were working on their laptops and got distracted. No date has been set for their hearing, which will be held before an NTSB judge, but both pilots asked for 90 days to prepare.

ATC recording posted on AvWeb regarding radio contact between ATC and NWA188
http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2009 ... rdings.mp3

[ahramin]

Before everyone goes off half cocked, these muppets are not necessarily stating that it wasn't their fault, they are simply providing a legal defense against the FAA's impulsive stupidity of pulling their licences.

I hope they don't actually think that it was ATC's responsibility to keep them aware of where they were.

[Blakey]

New information. Wrong freq dialed in.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4219f00f&opt=4096