Missed appraoch questions

[diddy1234]

I was wondering if anyone knows the following :-

1. How many attempts can be performed at landing at the original airport before being diverted to another airport ?
I know fuel is king here but are there other factors that can determine a diversion.

2. Are long haul flights given priority to land over short haul flights due to fuel ?

3. Do long haul flights skip holding patterns due to lack of fuel ?

Questions 3 and 4 relate to my best guess that long haul flights do not have a 2 hour holding time at their destination but I could be wrong.

Thanks for answering these questions. They have been questions I had wondered for a while.

[BOAC]

1. Company specified, but 'normally' 2 is the accepted usual max. but not hard and fast.

2/3 No

4 ????

There is no '2 hour holding' requirement.

[flyingtincan]

I was PAX on a flight on 11 March that diverted from Stansted to Luton due to fog at STN. Couldn't see a thing out the window. It was such a non-event that the passengers next to me asked if we had landed. After a while Captain came on with the full story and options available; another attempt or divert. But after 10 minutes it was off to LUT with a coach return to STN. Apparently there could have been possibility of flying back to STN but it ended up not do-able.

[darkroomsource]

to OP
this is kind of a misconception amongst some people...

By law, a pilot has to plan for a certain amount of fuel on board after arriving at the destination. This is enough to make some number of attempts and fly to the planned 'alternate' destination (alternate is 'in case of weather', so a safe alternate is often in a different area with different weather patterns, rather than the 'closest' airport). When the amount of fuel is enough to fly to the alternate and land, then attempts to land at the first airport must cease.

Companies can also specify limits to the number of times a pilot can attempt to land, there are lots of reasons for a company specifying a number, it may believe that after 2 attempts the pilots will be trying too hard on the 3rd attempt, or it may be that they have researched and find it cost effective, or or or.

If a pilot thinks the plane is 'low on fuel' he can state that to the controller and usually get preferential treatment, short time in a holding pattern, etc. But when a pilot declares that the plane is low on fuel, the pilot can be asked to explain, and risks action if it turns out that the legal requirements were not met. And in some cases in the past, the airline has been asked to explain why their planes have declared low fuel.

So a long haul flight should arrive at it's destination with the same amount of 'extra' fuel on board as does a short haul flight. The distance of the flight does not reduce the requirement. In fact, (depending on the company), it is more likely that the flight arriving from a long haul will have more 'reserve' fuel than one arriving from a short flight.

Planes don't drive to the pump and fill up like people do with a car, rather they take into account the weight of the passengers and cargo, length of the flight, and determine how much fuel to carry that will complete the flight with the required (company and law) reserves.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

darkroomsource... In the UK a pilot cannot get preferential treatment in a low fuel situation unless he declares an emergency.

Diddy.. You said: "How many attempts can be performed at landing at the original airport before being diverted to another airport ?"

Just to make things clear, an aircraft cannot be diverted by anyone except the captain.

[darkroomsource]

I did say 'declare' but didn't say 'emergency'
In some parts of Africa, you don't have to say the word emergency to get in quicker, but in others you do.
At any rate, if you use the e-word or not (in some places you have to use the e-word to get in quicker), you may have to explain yourself after you land.

[BOAC]

Just to make things clear, an aircraft cannot be diverted by anyone except the captain. - only strictly correct in the context of this query in as much as he/she has 'hands on levers' - in fact any 'suitable' authority can, including ATC (think 9/11), company, co-pilot or hijacker to name but a few.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

BOAC. OK. 9/11 was something different but under normal conditions ATC cannot instruct a pilot to divert (unless things have changed). On several occasions I had to relay a message from the airport authority asking the pilot to consider diverting to prevent long delays to other traffic. Usually they did but sometimes they wanted to continue as planned and their decision was not queried further.

[s_bakmeijer]

In some cases, they can close the airport when below minima's and recommend you to divert !

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Not in the UK!

[Denti]

Only time I've seen an airport effectively closed was when all runways were closed for snow removal. Happens more often on single runway airports of course. Even on airports where ground handling is stopped completely with a thunderstorm overhead (EDDS for example) the airport is not closed and landing/take off clearances will be given. In the end it is the PICs decision if he will do that.

[dixi188]

What about when Heathrow was closed due to the tower being evacuated when a fire alarm went off?

[sevenstrokeroll]

let me take a whack at this.

first off the two hour business...at some destinations, like islands, with no reasonable alternate nearby, 2 hours of extra fuel is carried in llieu of an alternate...I can't imagine anyplace in the UK where this would count.

airports are not closed due to wx...airports are closed if there is an accident and the crash fire rescue people are responding to an accident...the authority of the aiport (manager, not ATC) can have a letter of agreement with ATC to close the airport on their behalf if fire crews are responding and could not respond to an additional accident.

clearing a runway with snow is another reason that the managers can close the airport, but fog or thunderstorms are not reason t o ''close'' an airport.

ATC may limit IFR departures or arrivals to allow planes to maneuver around thunderstorms.

The captain can choose to divert as he chooses. in the USA a dispatcher can also choose to divert his flight with concurrence of the captain...but the final authority is always the captain.

YOU may make as many attempts as you like to land...no regulation against a dozen tries...however, it is considered prudent to try the approach once and if a mistake is made, or weather improvements or other improvements are noted, another attempt can be done. After this, it is considered good form to divert...however it is not a regulation.

Yes, FUEL is king...and rarely do you have enough for more than a couple of attempts before diverting.

AS to the 911 shutdown of USA airspace, that was a unique situation involving national security regulations which have been on the books since the start of the cold war.

Long haul flights have no priority.

Low fuel may be declared using the phrase: MINIMUM FUEL...ATC will then advise the pilot if he cannot be given a guarantee of no delays...if delays can be expected ATC will ask where the pilot wishes to divert to.

One can declare an emergency and be granted priority landing attempts, but that is a whole other can of worms.


I've attempted an approach three times into chicago midway as the wx was reported at approach mins but we never saw the runway...we had lots of fuel and then went to indianapolis and spent the night.

many factors can affect the success of an approach, even sun angle!

so...if anyone tells you different, its questionable...again these are US regulations...and we can only START an approach if the airport is reporting satisfactory visibility conditions.