Good Afternoon All:
I have been following this thread for a bit and as a "retired" guy I thought I would add some thoughts without pointing fingers in an arrogant way etc.
Based on my experience on the A-330 after a diversion you should have about 3 tonnes of fuel left based on the old rule of alternate arrival of having 30 minutes left of fuel (please correct if I have gotten this rule as incorrect as it has been 7 years). The rough guide for the A-330 for fuel consumption was 6 tonnes per hour for flight planning meaning the aircraft in question should have had 3 tonnes or slightly greater in tanks.
Again using rough guidance from way back the A-330 A.P.U. (under load electrics and pneumatic's) used approximately 400 kilograms of fuel per hour. Using that assumption the A.P.U. would have flamed out after 7 hours of use based on the fuel left after the diversion.
This is just me being me, after engines were shut down if asked to move the aircraft I would have said to the airport authority give me at least 5 tonnes and I will other wise the aircraft stays were it is. By doing that with the minimum fuel would have kept the aircraft with electrics and pneumatic's for passenger comfort.
Of interest at the Air Transat hearing the aircraft commander stated there was no complaints about cabin temperature when the A.P.U. flamed out from fuel starvation. Again from memory the human body generates roughly 75 watts of heat per hour, so times that against the number of passengers is a lot of heat to get rid of. I can remember a flight years ago in DEL were the A.P.U. failed on a B-767 even after getting full ground support it took an hour into flight before the cabin became comfortable again.
An aircraft commanders responsibility is the protection of crew, passengers aircraft and company property (physical and intellectual).
I will let the inquiry be the arbitrator of that but from my thinking this was a failure on many parts starting with the aircraft commander, flight dispatch, systems operational control and passenger services.
From the Ottawa Citizen
Egan: We were treated like luggage, passengers testify at Air Transat hearing | Ottawa Citizen
Alan and Patricia Abraham had a wonderful cruise through the Greek islands for their 25th wedding anniversary in July, only to arrive home to a nightmare.
After two weeks away, their Montreal-bound Air Transat return flight was diverted to Ottawa because of a thunderstorm. For nearly five hours, they sat on the tarmac in sweltering heat, tantalizingly close to their Orléans home. It was nearly 30 C outside, with no air conditioning, no departure schedule, no answers. Tempers rose, shouting began. A little boy vomited in the aisle. Children cried.
Alan’s nagging back, already stressed after a nine-hour flight, was aching. His anxiety rose. Flight crew, he said, were huddled away, tired of answering questions. All told, they were given about half a glass of water each and a “rock-hard” hunk of food.
“The stench in that plane was unbelievable,” he testified Wednesday, saying the pilot first warned of a 45-minute delay. “The pain in my back was intolerable, unbelievable. I was starting to get really bad anxiety after four-and-half hours.
“There was no relief from them whatsoever, no help. It was absolutely ridiculous. I felt like we were luggage.”
The Abrahams were among three passengers on flight TS507 who testified at a hearing of the Canadian Transportation Agency examining Air Transat’s conduct on the evening of July 31 when 20 commercial flights were diverted to Ottawa because of bad weather in Montreal and Toronto.
“I mean, they ran out of toilet paper,” testified Patricia. “Conditions were deplorable.”
On the second parked flight, TS157 from Brussels, the agency heard from four passengers, including Marc Jetté, who was so alarmed at conditions on the plane he called 911, drawing first responders to the aircraft to distribute bottled water and ventilate the interior by opening the doors.
“It was like being trapped in an elevator,” he said, stressing the sense of claustrophobia.
The stories drew a harrowing picture. Montreal resident Marie-Hélène Tremblay, testifying by video, described her desperation after she ran out of baby food for her 13-month-old, yet couldn’t get off the plane while witnessing staff taking “selfies” out on the tarmac. Another passenger testified to her concern about her dog, stuck in the cargo hold for about 15 hours.
Several scoffed at Air Transat’s offer of $400 in compensation, which only some of the passengers were extended.
The Abrahams were so wrung out from their ordeal that, after finally arriving in Montreal near midnight, they collected their car and stopped overnight in Hawkesbury at 2 a.m., unable to finish the drive home.
The hearing, which is being conducted much like a court with oath-taking and cross-examination by lawyers, also heard from the Ottawa International Airport Authority.
President Mark Laroche stressed the provision of fuel, food and water to passengers is not the responsibility of the airport.
“Airport authorities are not responsible for aircraft marshalling, refuelling, catering and baggage handling, many of the items that are at the heart of the issue before the panel today. All of these tasks fall within the purview of the airlines or their contracted ground handlers or agents.”
Airport authorities explained what an unusual night it was. On top of the regular schedule of 88 departure and arrivals, the airport had to “park” 20 diverted planes holding about 6,000 passengers. Among the planes was a massive Airbus A380 the airport does not normally accommodate.
Laroche said the evening was like a game of “Tetris,” in which pieces need to be fitted precisely together.
The airport considered the diverted planes of the “gas-and-go” variety, meaning they simply needed to be refuelled and sent on their way, not deplaned at gates. There was no request from any of the flights to disembark passengers, which would have meant clearing customs, emptying the baggage hold, letting passengers have a meal and re-clearing security.
Two employees of the refuelling company, Aircraft Service International Group, provided some insight into the complex workings of an airport.
“I guess I could describe the day as chaotic,” said dispatcher Matthew Robillard, who was co-ordinating the delivery of fuel, and handled dozens of phone calls and electronic messages that evening.
Manager Michael Jopling said the practice during an influx of diverted flights is to handle the regular scheduled flights first, then deal with the extra ones on a first-come, first-serve basis. The planes can’t be refuelled just anywhere, however, including if any of the wingtips are over grassy areas.
He suggested the position of some diverted planes that night — and the need to relocate them — led to delays in filling up tanks.
A lawyer representing Air Transat, Madeleine Renaud, queried airport authorities about why — if they aren’t involved in refuelling — they helped a diverted KLM flight gas up within 15 minutes and depart fairly quickly. That crew, the hearing heard, was nearly “timed out,” meaning the pilot and crew were near the end of their permissible flight time.
The airport said it merely facilitated the connection between KLM and the refueller.
Air Transat officials, including the president, are to testify Thursday, but Wednesday offered a brief statement:
“We are very aware of the difficult situation that has been experienced by our passengers. We have made our apologies for that and we apologize again. I think the hearing today show the complexity of the situation we’ve been faced with,” said Transat vice-president Christophe Hennebelle.
To contact Kelly Egan, please call 613-726-5896 or email
[email protected]
Twitter.com/kellyegancolumn