ETOPS
Why edit your post to still provide inaccurate info? The A/C was destined for LHR, started to divert to LTN (having never even commenced a hold at BIG), then turned back to LHR when EATs were cancelled (it's a fluid situation, they were being updated constantly), and landed at LHR. Never even made an approach to LTN, though it flew towards BKY momentarily.
411A - the facts of this incident will come to light eventually - there is more to it than just being held down over Africa... I was one of the controllers working last night when the incident happened... I am not drawing any conclusions but some variables are ... because we were in EATs, the A/C came across relatively low and slow into TC airspace..... the EATs were quite innnacurate i.e. we were at the stage that we were hovering on the boundary of getting rid of them.... however our traffic managers would rather promulgate a delay than state that there was none, only for A/C to then have to hold unexpectedly (safer that way, obviously), the pilot believed he was fine to make his diversion - i.e. LTN.
It transpires (in hindsight) that if he had gone to LHR he would have had little or no delay. It is the old swiss cheese model - a/c short of fuel, holding taking place, holding gets cancelled just after a/c diverts etc etc. The holes all got lined up last night.
Should the pilot have called a PAN earlier? Well he did not have to hold anywhere and he should have had fuel to get to LTN and carry out a missed approach and still have fuel to go around and land - did he have the fuel to do this when he commenced the diversion or should he have PAN'ned? Did ATC do all they could (though he was told as he commenced his diversion that if he called a PAN, he would get priority into LHR) bearing in mind the EATs were slightly innacurate and were constantly being amended as they were reducing?
It's not just a simple case of a UK carrier not carrying enough fuel (mind you they probably carry less than the Yanks because we pay so much more for ours
), it's not just a case of bad airmanship, and it's not just a case of bad ATC - it's a combination of factors that could include all or a few of those things. Instead of drawing conclusions now, lets wait to see what comes out... but please, please,
ETOPS, lets get our facts correct if we are going to claim you are in the know... all that your amended post shows is that the computers have not been updated as to reflect fact. Yes,
As I have direct access to FICO I checked as soon as this thread started. The flight record clearly showed that 088 routed NBO-LTN-LHR. The delay code remarks (which I won't divulge
) also showed the reasons.
There was a further sector planned LTN -LHR.
the A/C was going to be routed NBO-LTN-LHR if the diversion had been completed and yes there would have to have obviously been an extra sector planned LTN-LHR if the diversion happened, but the diversion did not take place
