Originally Posted by
Old King Coal
Uhm, so which one is it guys?
White Knight: "
From what I recall I've always had EFHK as the filed Alternate whenever I've taken a 380 to UUDD... and just to confirm (having checked our 380 airport authorisation tables) none of the other Moscow airports are open to our 380 ops! So EFHK is pretty much the standard fair weather alternate; otherwise we're filing further into Europe or Scandinavia."
Versus:
BigGeordie: "
The fair weather alternate is often UUEE, even for the A380. Have a look at GABI."
It's pretty self-evident that there's a f'ing big difference between distance (
and ergo the fuel required) between
UUDD to EFHK (508 Nm) versus
UUDD to UUEE (38 Nm). And if you'd like to visualise it then
click in this link. If what you both say is correct, then it begs the question as to why Ops are filling for a 380 to use airfields (
as alternates) that are not within the airport authorisation tables (
maybe perhaps only for use in an emergency only, but does that cover a diversion) ?
One would suggest that if the crew of EK-131 on the 10th Sept had fuel for EFHK then what happened at UUDD would be no issue, fuel wise... whereas if all they had was fuel for one of the other Moscow airports (
plus perhaps a little bit of wife&kids fuel) ?... then a +33 minute low level jaunt with 2 go-arounds might have painted them into something of a fuel corner, though one does hope not.
OKC. As you already know, when something goes bad for you in this region, you are on your own. No support from anyone. You are treated as guilty until something can be proven otherwise. The stress and distress this causes is huge. The landing fuel did not cause this issue. Your speculation is not going reveal the cause of what happened. But it is rubbing salt into the wound of an already beaten down fellow aviator. Final reserve would have been between 3.8t and 4.1t. So even if your morbid fascination is correct, and I haven't checked, he would have still had final reserve.