> Coop wrote:
>

>> I see Crikey giving both these organisations a serve today. The
>> article appeared in "Indaily" a daily helping from Adelaide's
>> Independent Weekly, which I subscribe to.
>>

>
>

>> Here is the latest example sent to Crikey this morning:
>>
>> QF 12 departed Los Angeles on Thursday 21 August on time at
>> 2230. Due in to Sydney on Saturday 23 August at 0605. Flight time
>> planned at 14 hours 46 minutes from Sydney the aircraft diverted to
>> Brisbane due to 'weather and high cross winds'. A lie - the aircraft
>> VH-OJT a 747-400 had been unserviceable in LAX for 2 days with a
>> faulty fuel pump. The issue was not resolved and the aircraft left
>> thus resulting in the diversion. Plenty of fuel on board but a busted
>> pump which could not get it to the engines.
>>

>
> So, unnamed sources quoted by the media are now a reliable place to gather
> information? What a load of rubbish.
>
> Now, for the aircraft to fly, Australian engineers would have had to sign
> it out. And as I know the ones in LA rather well, it would not have been
> going anywhere if it should not have been. And also what on earth makes
> you think pilots would accept a broken aircraft for a trip across a very
> large pond? This smacks of a conspiracy theory, but includes the two
> groups least likely to be party to one.
>
> Tanks have varying numbers of pumps, but apart from the very small AUX
> tanks, there are at least two, and some have four. The AUX tanks have
> zero..... Fuel will feed without any pump pressure to the associated
> engine.
>
> I did this sector a few days ago, and the flight time quoted is getting
> near the max possible. It would have taken only a small change in the
> weather for me to have gone to Brisbane too. And why is it that you doubt
> crosswinds and weather? Both exist in Sydney. And on a wet runway, the
> crosswind limit is dramatically reduced....so if showers are on the
> forecast, and the wind is getting up there, dropping in to Brisbane makes
> perfect sense.
>
>
>