PDA

View Full Version : 767 lands !!!!


aeropers
28th Feb 2006, 19:57
Happened last week:

Aircraft with 235 pax and 9 crew is lined up on ILS, weather Cat3, remaining fuel at or below required minimum. Airport has electrical power problems: rvr and wind info no longer available. Aircraft therefore instructed to go-around, crew then declare short of fuel and emergency situation imminent. ILS officially downgraded to Cat1. All other traffic diverts. ATC clear aircraft for Cat1 approach although weather remains Cat3. Crew commence approach, at final approach fix ATC informs that rvr below Cat1 minimum. aircraft however continues, but does not receive landing clearance. Just before touchdown crew asks for and receives clearance to land.

Guess the operator and airport...

the heavy heavy
28th Feb 2006, 20:01
interesting,

you seem to be suggesting that they should have gone around and crashed after running out of fuel.

would have kept them legal.:confused:

Nato 35
28th Feb 2006, 20:03
Dunno??????

FlyUK
28th Feb 2006, 20:05
the heavy heavy, you beat me to it. Shouldn't have got into that situation in the first place, but I fail to see any other option? Is that the discussion over?

Frosch
28th Feb 2006, 20:14
Hate to say, but "“A superior pilot is one who stays out of trouble by using superior judgment to avoid situations which might require the use of superior skill”. "Pilot" should be "crew" in any case.

If weather is CatIII you'd better not arrive with low fuel. Thats what JAR says anyhow. So still wondering where this happened. Don't get caught.

Anyway: **** happens, and as long as you can walk away..... Hope this kind of thing does not happen to me sometime....

Shagtastic
28th Feb 2006, 20:26
Aeropers,

You're obviously such an expert tell us what you would do?

Run out of fuel and be legal? or land asap and keep 235 pax alive and well?

Shags

foxmoth
28th Feb 2006, 20:36
At the end of the day there is a getout clause in the rules, I can't remember the exact phrasing, but it basically says that if you need to do it because you are in the s*#t then you can do it anyway, maybe subject to question, but in the end probably not illegal!:p

SpringbokDreamer
28th Feb 2006, 20:37
Shouldn't this be changed to 767 Lands safely?

Yes, yes, there are lots of reasons why it shouldn't have got this bad but as Heavy says what should he have done fired them up and flown to his alternate crash site, half way to his designated alternate?

No other decision to be made... LAND...

Maybe a company restraint on how much fuel can be taken, without the captain getting out his own wallet to cover the tankering costs...

Ps Oops :sad:

Phileas Fogg
28th Feb 2006, 20:56
Somewhat like Flight & Duty time regulations, under normal circumstances one is allowed X number of hours discretion but when the sh1t hits the fan ..... one is allowed to act as deemed necessary given the circumstances.

captjns
28th Feb 2006, 21:31
You must go the onset of the low fuel emergency. Where did this incident occur? Was it after an ocean crossing? Was he flying overland? There is no mention where this occurred and, therefore speculation without the facts is inappropriate.

Streamline
28th Feb 2006, 21:57
The following reasoning may be a bit twisted but if you can continue if RVR drops below min after passing the approach ban point, you can do it in this case before reaching App Ban Point

I realise the ILS was CAT I but only because the backup equipment was not on line but effectively the ILS was at cat III level.

Based on this information I think it’s OK at least it can be defended to be better than any other available alternative. Extra fuel of course being the best option.

frogone
28th Feb 2006, 22:22
Hindsight is 20/20.

However this is one of these situations where they were going to make the papers regardless of the outcome. There are 2 possible out comes.

1. Bust minima, and land in one piece.

2. Divert with less than minimum fuel, turn into a glider, and then end up a smoking hole in the ground. Well maybe not too much smoke (no fuel!), but you get the idea.

Aircraft in one piece, No fatalaties, everyone walks away, albeit a little embarrsed.

Now you decide what option you'd pick.

IR

barit1
28th Feb 2006, 22:33
Once again the myth of ATC "controlling" a flight arises.

The only sure control is gravity. The crew use their wits and resources to overcome gravity as long as safely possible, knowing they will run out of both at some point.

At that point ATC becomes irrelevant.

glidehigh
28th Feb 2006, 22:38
Go on..... tell us.... who was it?

RoyHudd
28th Feb 2006, 22:41
767 could have had a fuel leak, been held down for cruise, already on a weather diversion, or any number of "mitigating factors". Legality may be irrelevant, and ultimately was. Bloody smug lawyer-types, keep me from 'em.

KLMer
28th Feb 2006, 22:51
to be honest i dont want to know who it was and where it was, seems a bit of a silly post tome to have a pop at a perticular person or airline, not what pprune should be all about. Please tell me what would you guys have done i know what i would have done and sod the rule books, no facts are talked about so how can we make a judgment on the situation. With out going into the in's and out's of KLM's fuel policy we are not required anymore to carry so called "AWO fuel" therefore no extra required, anyone can get into that situation. Im glad the crew landed safely rather than go around and run out of fuel. Perhaps in the future if such a post is going to be admitted a little more detail would be good rather than just trying to slate someone..... perhaps i smell a rat somewhere along the line

F4F
28th Feb 2006, 23:00
all details to be found at http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/HB-ISE

aeropers, did I win, did I win :p

Minimalist
28th Feb 2006, 23:14
Not saying this is what happened in this case but imagine.... you arrive at destination which is unexpectedly cat 3 weather and you are told 50 mins holding. You have fuel for 20 mins. So you divert to your alternate. Your alternate is cat 1 with one runway and on the approach the runway is blocked by the aircraft ahead. ATC tell you to go around and expect 1 hours delay.

Say there are no other airfields. Where do you go? Back to the destination and declare an emergency? If you still have the fuel, otherwise you might be stuffed already but... you get back there and the ILS is downgraded but the weather is still cat 3. F***!

But whatever the reason for having very little fuel, what choice do you have if you don't have enough to go somewhere else?

alberto86
28th Feb 2006, 23:19
passengers' safety can't be discussed, it comes before anything else.

The 767's captain did the best thing , they had no other place to land so with a little fuel and that runway was the safest place to go .

Captain104
28th Feb 2006, 23:19
crew then declare short of fuel and emergency situation imminent.

Option 1: Their declaration has been true. IMHO they had no other option and your thread should be rebranded as proposed: "767 landed safely".
Option2: Do you have any doubts? Are you guessing that they just pressed on pretending to be low on fuel, thus avoiding a go around?
Regards

barit1
1st Mar 2006, 00:00
...your thread should be rebranded as proposed: "767 landed safely".


But then it wouldn't be news, would it? :sad:

cwatters
1st Mar 2006, 00:05
How much was left in the tanks when they were checked? or doesn't anyone check after such an event? What would happen if you worked in a bank and told your boss you almost lost a £100 million but it turned out alright in the end?

Belgique
1st Mar 2006, 01:10
Last time this happened was unforecast fog (QANTAS at Perth) and ANSETT A320 in Adelaide, South Australia. At least they had a viable excuse.

Does anybody recall/know the links to those reports?

jondc9
1st Mar 2006, 01:18
I think that if things had gone from bad to worse, the plane might have missed the runway and crashed short or off to one side.

but it didn't.

this pilot will probably be punished in one form or another. let us just be happy that this is a minor incident and not on the front page of the NY Times.

you said to guess who it was. was it american airlines?

jon

eman_resu
1st Mar 2006, 02:18
Belair apparently.

Gretchenfrage
1st Mar 2006, 02:59
They shouldn't have got into that situation, that's for sure.
But as has been pointed out, s*** sometimes happens quickly and unexpectantly. Then plan B comes into play and I think they applied it well, they landed safely.
Remember another incident a few years ago when a Saab got caught in one of the most severe squall lines in northern Europe? They diverted twice to avoid it and found themselves on final of a big airport. There the wind exceeded the maximum and ATC closed it. The captain diverted once again just to run out of fuel and crash the aircraft on a closed airport into a wall across the runway. Luckily no one got hurt.
The situation was similar, the skipper lacked the captaincy to declare fuel emergency and tell ATC that they're going to put it down anyway, as there was a lighted runway, rescue service, observer etc.
To me the Belair skipper was right.
GF

javelin
1st Mar 2006, 03:48
I have seen similar in Command Assessments - the trainer presses and presses until you have to bust minima to land safely.

I would not have wanted to be in that situation, however due to the best planning and preparation, crap occurs and you sometimes end up low on fuel with a weather change after a longhaul flight. Through good communication, good crm and some basic common sense, the job gets done, you land safely and you have earned your money. Thankfully it happens very rarely.

Silver Tongued Cavalier
1st Mar 2006, 06:35
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=445616

"Scheizer, dat wus un close wun jah!!!" ;)

OzExpat
1st Mar 2006, 07:24
I haven't checked any of the links that have been provided so far but it seems to me that, if this airport is known for poor facilities, I feel confident in saying that the crew wouldn't have wanted to go there in that situation unless they were in real trouble. Therefore, given the weather and fuel situation, I reckon the crew did the right thing - good job, well done and beers well earned! :ok:

N380UA
1st Mar 2006, 07:52
Aeropers

What gives? Who are you trying to knock on here? Belair? Skyguide? Unique? Or all of them? What's your point here? Your handle suggests that your are former Swissair – now Swiss or something else. On a little personal vendetta?

So what gives? What are you trying to bring across here?

OzExpat

if this airport is known for poor facilities

LSZH actually has very good facilities.

Robert Vesco
1st Mar 2006, 07:53
Remember another incident a few years ago when a Saab got caught in one of the most severe squall lines in northern Europe? They diverted twice to avoid it and found themselves on final of a big airport. There the wind exceeded the maximum and ATC closed it. The captain diverted once again just to run out of fuel and crash the aircraft on a closed airport into a wall across the runway. Luckily no one got hurt.
The situation was similar, the skipper lacked the captaincy to declare fuel emergency and tell ATC that they're going to put it down anyway, as there was a lighted runway, rescue service, observer etc.
To me the Belair skipper was right.
GF I agree with you that the Belair captain was 100% right in thinking outside the box and forcing an autoland on this CAT I ILS. I don´t understand what the big deal is all about...

The only thing I can think of is the lack of taking extra fuel. I remember ZRH can be quite foggy in the mornings and something must have been in the TAF´s. I haven´t been to good ol´ ZRH in ages, but what happened to a CAT III ILS on runway 14? Was that no option for the Belair 767 crew?

Small remark regarding the Saab incident: forcing a 767 to make an autoland on a downgraded CAT I runway in CAT III visibility conditions (from the BFU link provided it appears the ILS equipment was not downgraded, only the RVR and wind meters) is quite a bit different from forcing a small bouncing turboprop onto a runway in windshear, heavy rain and thunderstorm conditions and hope you will walk away from it...

AN2 Driver
1st Mar 2006, 08:01
Happened last week:

Aircraft with 235 pax and 9 crew is lined up on ILS, weather Cat3, remaining fuel at or below required minimum. Airport has electrical power problems: rvr and wind info no longer available. Aircraft therefore instructed to go-around, crew then declare short of fuel and emergency situation imminent. ILS officially downgraded to Cat1. All other traffic diverts. ATC clear aircraft for Cat1 approach although weather remains Cat3. Crew commence approach, at final approach fix ATC informs that rvr below Cat1 minimum. aircraft however continues, but does not receive landing clearance. Just before touchdown crew asks for and receives clearance to land.

Guess the operator and airport...

Guess the operator's pilots are not members of aeropers?

Lemme see. The incident you quote was described in a national paper, as you are surely aware. It looks a bit different from there. The figures involved were supplied to the paper by the airline itself.

The aircraft departed it's origin with 2.5 tons above the minimum required fuel. It arrived at the gate with 2.1 remaining, suggesting a landing fuel of around 2.5 tons. I don't know the final reserve of the type but the company states that the landing fuel was above the legal limit.

The airport in question has 2 independent CAT III runways, both of which with independent power sources. The emergency backup power of the main landing runway failed at 0830 local time, the aircraft were redirected to the other CAT III runway. That is when the 767 received the order to go around. Shortly afterwards, the indication of the RVR values at the tower failed for that runway as well. The airport subsequently closed for 18 minutes for landings. The captain of the said 767 advised the tower that they would have to declare a fuel emergency within 10 minutes and divert immediately if no approach was available and were given the approach clearance by ATC. 4 aircraft who were in the holding at the time diverted, others were close to it. The aircraft was given landing clearance at short final. According to the carrier involved it landed with above the final reserve on board.

So some of your comments seem a bit at odd with the reported facts. If the tower had no RVR information, how would they inform the PIC at the FAF that RVR was below minimums? "All the other aircraft diverted" meant exactly 4 of them, surely not the only ones in the hold at that time? Where does the information come from that the fuel on board at the time of the first approach was already below minimum? Nothing I have seen suggests that?

So do you know more than the rest of us of this incident or do I detect a a jump at the chance to have a go at some people which do not belong mixed with a pinch of Schadenfreude? :yuk: And apart from that, are you posting in the name of the organisation whose name you have chosen as form nick and if not are they aware of your post and agree?

For the record, the incident is under investigation by the respective air investigation branch, which will set the record straight eventually. Up to then, I would suggest to stick to the known facts which are not as few as usual considering that the airline itself volonteered a lot of information such as the fuel levels in the interest of transparency.


What will be my main interest in that report is the ramifications of an airport with 2 independent CAT III runways loosing both of them within a few minutes. Wether the fuel at the onset of this incident was sufficient or not, wether the decision to continue to land in CAT III in the first place was adequate will certainly be cleared at the time. Certainly, in the days of the JAR OPS fuel policies there is not a lot of margin for such incidents when an dual CAT III runway airport suddenly becomes CAT I.

A and C
1st Mar 2006, 08:32
It would seen to me that a few people who have posted above have not got a clue about how to be a captain and seem to think that the "big book of rules" will keep thm safe just so long as they don't break any of the rules.

Well guys I have news for you................... the rules are writen for the lawers to fight over should the worst happen and to be complied with under normal situations.

Flying is a dynamic situation and what is a normal flight can turn into a very non-normal flight with the should the wrong set of events fall into place.

No one can cover ALL situations and some times the safest option is to break some of the rules.

In this case the captain took the option of landing in CAT3 using a CAT1 ILS.

There is no doubt that the ILS was radiating signals of the normal quality BUT the power supply back up had failed. the aircraft was short of fuel and divertion was not a good opiton.

Ask your selfs what is the worst thing that could have happend if the ILS power had failed ?................ the aircraft would have had to go-around, a situation that the crew would have practiced in the sim over the years.
in all no big deal.

A lot of things had gone wrong for the captain to have to fly a CAT3 approach on to a CAT1 runway so this course of action would not have been taken lightly and the result was the aircraft on the ground safely, in my opinion good risk management.

It is clear to me that a large number of people who have posted above have no idea about being a captain and think that the rule book will have all the answers, it is time for you all to come out from out from under the rule book safety blanket into the real world and wake up to the fact that from the moment that you open the throttle at the start of a flight the leagal rules are only for guidence, it is the laws of phisics that you have to obey.

Streamline
1st Mar 2006, 08:42
Wether the fuel at the onset of this incident was sufficient or not, wether the decision to continue to land in CAT III in the first place was adequate will certainly be cleared at the time. Certainly, in the days of the JAR OPS fuel policies there is not a lot of margin for such incidents when an dual CAT III runway airport suddenly becomes CAT I.

We are back at square one. Legal minimum requirements are not the same as common sense.

I do not want to blame the crew but pilots that only think and fly like lawyers get in trouble sooner or later.

They picked a solution out of the options available. ATC is allowed to make a Visual RVR assesment and so are you in case of a Take Off. The options are there ...use them.

Robert Vesco
1st Mar 2006, 08:44
Hmmm, thanks for your reply and additional info AN2 Driver!

It answers some of my questions, but now I also have some new ones:

The aircraft departed it's origin with 2.5 tons above the minimum required fuel. It arrived at the gate with 2.1 remaining, suggesting a landing fuel of around 2.5 tons. I don't know the final reserve of the type but the company states that the landing fuel was above the legal limit.

So did they not take alternate fuel, but instead relied on decision point planning? If so, how could it depart with 2,5 tons above minimum (i.e. extra fuel) when (please correct me if I´m wrong) Decision Point Procedure is usualy something you do when you´re tight on fuel and/or MTOW is a problem.

The captain of the said 767 advised the tower that they would have to declare a fuel emergency within 10 minutes and divert immediately if no approach was available and were given the approach clearance by ATC. 4 aircraft who were in the holding at the time diverted, others were close to it. The aircraft was given landing clearance at short final.

You make quite a jump from the other 4 diverting to the Belair 767 landing. What happened in the mean time?
Did the 767 crew burn it´s alternate and/or extra fuel in the hold, hoping/betting on any CAT III ILS coming online again in ZRH? With perfect alternates like BSL, MUC and STR just around the corner? If so, it seems like a strange decision.

:confused:

A and C:Ask your selfs what is the worst thing that could have happend if the ILS power had failed ?................ the aircraft would have had to go-around, a situation that the crew would have practiced in the sim over the years.
in all no big deal. That depends on how much fuel you have left and the availability of usable alternates, see what I wrote above...

Austrian Simon
1st Mar 2006, 09:03
We are back at square one. Legal minimum requirements are not the same as common sense.

If you want to apply common sense here, then you need to take into account, that it is not common sense to assume, that two completely independent systems fail at the same time. Here we have two completely independent runways, two completely independent CATIII capable ILS, two completely independent power supplies, two completely independent backup power supplies ...

If you want to declare nonetheless, that common sense requires to anticipate the simultaneous failure of these systems (and accordingly load more fuel, burn more fuel, thus wasting a considerable amount of the fuel for just flying fuel around), then you have to ground each and every airplane right away.

Even those systems, that have three or four independent instances on board (be it engines, hydraulics, ...) have shown in the past, that they all could and occasionally did fail at the same time.

Think about it!

Simon

sarah737
1st Mar 2006, 09:11
A trip of nearly 10hours, it might have been impossible to carry extra fuel.
Who says they didn't see the runway at CATI minima?

Gretchenfrage
1st Mar 2006, 09:24
Robert Vesco

"Small remark regarding the Saab incident: forcing a 767 to make an autoland on a downgraded CAT I runway in CAT III visibility conditions (from the BFU link provided it appears the ILS equipment was not downgraded, only the RVR and wind meters) is quite a bit different from forcing a small bouncing turboprop onto a runway in windshear, heavy rain and thunderstorm conditions and hope you will walk away from it..."

This is very true, I would have preferred to be in the 767 than in the Saab. However ..... when the Saab went around, he had no other airport option because he was too short of fuel. So landing would have been the better one with at least a reasonable chance of bringing even a small bouncing turboprop down halfway intact. That's exactly the option the 767 skipper took, and rightly so. Both shouldn't have been in such a situation in the first place and will face some consequence. But the latter chose not to stay airborne with nowhere to go, thus irrespective of the difficulty of putting their respective equipment down, having only a worse option, he took the right and the Saab skipper the wrong option.
GF

N380UA
1st Mar 2006, 09:33
ILS power did not fail. The system was on Bat./Diesel therefore, I/A/W IACO Annex 10 had to be downgraded to CAT I. This was a legislative/policies issue and not technical. CAT III capabilities were given throughout the entire incident.
The fact that under these circumstances the hot standby was no longer provided as the system was on it already caused the downgrade. The same procedure would apply anywhere else.
I doubt that this information was know to the crew though.
Whether the crew had a visual of the runway lights or the ground at CAT I minima I don’t know nor do I know if the crew relied on a decision point planning.
All I know is that we are missing a bunch of facts here. It probably wasn’t as critical as some make it out to have been. The BFU is investigating, we'll see in due time what has lead up to this event.

alexban
1st Mar 2006, 09:33
RV: minimum required fuel includes alternate fuel. The 2.5 t that he refers to is cpt's fuel,what the cpt asked above the planed required fuel,after he studies all info's concerning the flight:weather,notams,etc..
The decision point planning modifies the route reserve fuel,fuel you burn from whatever reason during flight,for ex weather avoidance.
However the alternate fuel remains the same,and it's included in the fuel figure.If ,at decision point,somewhere on the route,you have enaugh fuel ,you go to destination.If not,you go the alternate planned destination.
The story,as I understand from AN2 driver,is like this: the 767 commenced the app for one rwy,then the cat3 ils failed ,so the 767 did a go-around. Then the airport had to close for 18 min,so the plane had to hold.After 18 min hold the 767 cpt informed that in about 10 min he will declare emergency,and if no approach available he has to divert 'now'.
The ATC cleared him for a cat1 app,as no info's regarding RVR available.
So he commenced the app,and lands,after receiving short final clearance,most likely after he announced rwy in sight.
Where's the problem here?
I have no doubt that they've checked his gate fuel,and also that the final reserve was written on his computerized flight plan.So,no problem finding out if it was or not bellow final reserve.
Brgds Alex

AN2 Driver
1st Mar 2006, 09:47
Hmmm, thanks for your reply and additional info AN2 Driver!
It answers some of my questions, but now I also have some new ones:
So did they not take alternate fuel, but instead relied on decision point planning? If so, how could it depart with 2,5 tons above minimum (i.e. extra fuel) when (please correct me if I´m wrong) Decision Point Procedure is usualy something you do when you´re tight on fuel and/or MTOW is a problem.



No. I see nothing to indicate that neither DPP nor no alternate was used, no alternate is no option for Long Haul anyhow and certainly not with that forcast. What I said and what the statement of Belair was is that it took 2.5 tons of fuel on top of the minimum required block fuel for the flight.



You make quite a jump from the other 4 diverting to the Belair 767 landing. What happened in the mean time?


I don't know what happened but let's say I have vague idea based on the statements in the report and only on that. The 767 was on the approach to the first CAT III runway when the backup power to that one failed, or so I understand it. As it became CAT I as a consequence they were ordered to go around. Then ATC switched onto the 2nd runway. Sometime after that, and nowhere is indicated when, but I would rekon pretty soon, ATC discovered that they had no RVR readings at the Tower for that second fully CAT III equipped runway. Take or leave a few minutes after the go around until the ramifications became clear AND was relyed to the airplanes.


Did the 767 crew burn it´s alternate and/or extra fuel in the hold, hoping/betting on any CAT III ILS coming online again in ZRH? With perfect alternates like BSL, MUC and STR just around the corner? If so, it seems like a strange decision.
:confused:



Again, don't know means don't know. The alternate fuel to BSL is not that much anyhow. However, the Belair statement said that when the situation with the 10 minutes to fuel emergency was declared there was still enough fuel to go to Basle, albeit with priority and a probable fuel emergency at Basle. Reading through it again I rekon THAT was what the initial announcement meant.


A and C: That depends on how much fuel you have left and the availability of usable alternates, see what I wrote above...

You know that Basle is not far to go, the diversion fuel would be quite minimal. Also, the 2nd runway was perfectly ok apart from the RVR indication at the Tower. I read the whole thing that when they said either we land in 10 minutes here or we have to divert in emergency the tower must have told them that they could expect a full CAT III on the 2nd runway as it finally happened.

AN2 Driver
1st Mar 2006, 09:51
A trip of nearly 10hours, it might have been impossible to carry extra fuel.
Who says they didn't see the runway at CATI minima?

Sarah, the statement sais he HAD 2.5 tons extra at the time of departure.

For the second bit, I doubt it, and when he did land he did so under CAT III with all the information necessary even tough the clearance was pretty late.

Robert Vesco
1st Mar 2006, 09:51
However ..... when the Saab went around, he had no other airport option because he was too short of fuel. That´s not true, the Saab went around at HAM (DEST) due windshear and +TS and then diverted to BRE and went around, then diverted to TXL and went around and then ended low on fuel and diverted/commited to Werneuchen, the abandoned Russian airbase east of Berlin.

The Belair crew on the other hand appears to have burned up it´s ALT/EXTRA fuel at DEST (ZRH) without diverting and then was forced to make a CAT III landing on a partially LOVIS servicable runway.

If that´s true, then they should have diverted, just like the other 4...plain and simple.

AN2 Driver
1st Mar 2006, 09:55
ILS power did not fail. The system was on Bat./Diesel therefore, I/A/W IACO Annex 10 had to be downgraded to CAT I. This was a legislative/policies issue and not technical. CAT III capabilities were given throughout the entire incident.


That is how I understand it as well.


Whether the crew had a visual of the runway lights or the ground at CAT I minima I don’t know nor do I know if the crew relied on a decision point planning.

I think we may well exclude DPP planning as the statement by Belair sais he took 2.5 tons on top of his minimum block fuel. If he had this margin to play with DPP would most probably have been pointless.


All I know is that we are missing a bunch of facts here. It probably wasn’t as critical as some make it out to have been. The BFU is investigating, we'll see in due time what has lead up to this event.

Right. It's quite remarkable that the initial post here was a tad more sensationalist than what most of the papers wrote here. That's a new one :hmm:

@Alexban


The story,as I understand from AN2 driver,is like this: the 767 commenced the app for one rwy,then the cat3 ils failed ,so the 767 did a go-around. Then the airport had to close for 18 min,so the plane had to hold.After 18 min hold the 767 cpt informed that in about 10 min he will declare emergency,and if no approach available he has to divert 'now'.

I understand the 18 minutes the time from the closure until the Belair landed. For the remainder, fully concur.

AN2 Driver
1st Mar 2006, 10:00
If you want to apply common sense here, then you need to take into account, that it is not common sense to assume, that two completely independent systems fail at the same time. Here we have two completely independent runways, two completely independent CATIII capable ILS, two completely independent power supplies, two completely independent backup power supplies ...



From what is known and stated here as well that was not even the case. At least the landing runway itself stayed technically CAT III, the only thing that was missing were the RVR readouts on the tower. Everything else worked.

puff m'call
1st Mar 2006, 11:29
Well done to the pilots for making the correct decision and saving the lives of the passengers and crew. :ok:

Was that New York where the B707 flew around in bad weather and then ran out of fuel on finals? :ooh:

Gretchenfrage
1st Mar 2006, 13:04
Robert Vesco

That's exactly what i said: When they went around in TXL, they had no more option, thus the GA was not apropriate.
I think we concurr, that in the end the objective is to land safely. The Belair pilot did, by what plans or measures might be secundary, and the hero of Werneuchen didn't.
Even if planning-wise or letter-wise the latter did a better job (actually I don't know), the fact is that the earlier landed safely and the other one didn't.
This comes to the point of our other different views on other threads:
You have to deal with it!! It's as simple as that.
Others contributetd to this topic, and i agree, the FOM and the letter of the book is for lawyers. We will finally always be to their mercy, unfortunately. What's left to us is only to bring it down safely.
Some do and some don't. I'd rather do.
GF

ukatco_535
1st Mar 2006, 13:56
For whatever reason, the pilots found themselves short of fuel.

They made the executive decision to land below minima (we think without all the facts); He may have found a 'suckers gap' and became visual - it happens.

The crew and passengers walked away safely - Job done, and nicely in my opinion.

ATC may not have been aware of the severity of the problem -they can only work on what they know.

The Captain gets paid a lot of money for quite often doing not too much. This and other emergency situations show exactly why they get paid. To act and think calmly and rationally in testing circumstances. The 'manual' can never cover such events.

If everything was done by the book, there would be a hell of a lot more incidents out there. In ATC, one of the first paragraphs in the manual is that nothing contained within it should stop us doing whatever we feel necessary to ensure a flight stays safe. I am sure that professional pilots all over the world have the same ethos.

From my military flying days - aviate, navigate, communicate. In military terms, to enable you to continue to fight the aircraft. In civil terms, to get safely on the ground, without further incident.

Incidents like the above show why there will be human beings in the cockpit for a long long time to come yet - a computer is not intelligent enough to think through the scenario 'I am running out of fuel but the weather is below my minima' and come up with a safe solution.

captjns
1st Mar 2006, 14:13
It's a good thing that the Flight Control Computers are unable to discern if the ILS system is CAT I II or III. As long as FCC is able to recieve a signal from the ILS/GS antennae and send it to the FCS/AFS then an autoland can be made on a normal CAT I Airport, as long as two of the three 767's autopilots are functioning normally.

AN2 Driver
1st Mar 2006, 14:14
For whatever reason, the pilots found themselves short of fuel.
They made the executive decision to land below minima (we think without all the facts); He may have found a 'suckers gap' and became visual - it happens.


It does not appear so, from what is reported and known here they did indeed get the landing clearance in CAT III with all the needed information, albeit a bit late.

ukatco_535
1st Mar 2006, 14:18
AN2 Driver

Thanks for that added info. Not a suckers gap then,and they did receive (a late) clearance.

Still, they put it down in difficult circumstances and I think they did well. I would not, unlike the original poster, like to sit here and in hindsight berate the crew.

Regardless of how they came to be in the situation in the first place, they used their brains and training and walked away from it.

Midland 331
1st Mar 2006, 14:59
>Was that New York where the B707 flew around in bad weather and then ran out of fuel on finals?

Avianca at JFK.

Also CRM and "tardiness in declaring an emergency" issues.

More here

http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOJG/250190.htm

AN2 Driver
1st Mar 2006, 16:14
Still, they put it down in difficult circumstances and I think they did well. I would not, unlike the original poster, like to sit here and in hindsight berate the crew.
Regardless of how they came to be in the situation in the first place, they used their brains and training and walked away from it.

True. It was the original poster which prompted me to shed light, there is simply no need of such bias here. And whereas brains and training are concerned, I rekon that goes for all of them. Some good might even come from it eventually.

Best regards
AN2 Driver

F4F
1st Mar 2006, 16:14
puff m'call
well done to the pilots for making the correct decision and saving the lives of the passengers and crew.

In the name of all pilots, thanks for the compliment mate! We perform the same feat every day (for some of us many times a day, eh Gretchenfrage ;) ) we fly, making correct decisions and thereby saving zillions of pax :E

threemiles
1st Mar 2006, 16:24
Another view onto the matter:
There is another thread around here about denied approach clearances at EDDM airport.
The conclusion is: whenever the runway is clear and whenever there is no conflicting traffic/obstacle etc. and whatever the personal/airplane minimum of the flight is, it is the duty of ATC to issue an approach and landing clearance if the pilot requests so.
There is no such defined police control function for/by ATC that justifies a "late" landing clearance under the circumstances given.

Flyingphil
1st Mar 2006, 18:58
AN2

As far as what I have heard this plane came from Domenican Republic (maybe I oversaw a respective Comment above, Sorry!)

You said, he had 2,5 tons Extra on Board?
I think you know the regulations, you have to have Extra-Fuel for 30Min when arriving @Desti!
Since an 767 is expected to consume about 5,5t/Fhr I think on TO he was well in line with intern. Standards.

A good Operation or ATC would have informed him about a while prior arrival that the weather changed drastically so that the crew might have made an intermediate fuel-stop or would have gone to the Alternate at once;)

AN2 Driver
1st Mar 2006, 20:00
AN2
As far as what I have heard this plane came from Domenican Republic (maybe I oversaw a respective Comment above, Sorry!)



No, he came from CUN/MMUN/Cancun


You said, he had 2,5 tons Extra on Board?
I think you know the regulations, you have to have Extra-Fuel for 30Min when arriving @Desti!

What the statement from Belair said was that he took 2.5 tons MORE than what the flight plan required him to take, taking into account Route Reserve, Alternate and Final reserve and whatever else is above the line. Using your calculations that would have been around 30 mins on top of any compulsory reserves.


Since an 767 is expected to consume about 5,5t/Fhr I think on TO he was well in line with intern. Standards.


Sure looks like it. Significantly so.


A good Operation or ATC would have informed him about a while prior arrival that the weather changed drastically so that the crew might have made an intermediate fuel-stop or would have gone to the Alternate at once;)

I don't know what the TAF would have been preflight but I rekon the 2.5 tons over the top of the minimum required fuel might well have been a precaution for low vis expected at destination. Even CAT III originally did not hurt him at all, it was only when CAT III became unavailable WHILE he was on the approach that things got a little tense.

Again 2 independent CAT III runways to become downgraded at the same time is a pretty far stretch. It was a first at ZRH for sure!

JustAnothrWindScreen
1st Mar 2006, 22:41
Quite a few years ago during annual recurrent simulator the problem was given of an engine fire while on final that would not go out. Approaching the Final fix weather is called below minimums, way below minimums. Those that continued and landed... well they landed... those that went around ended up burning up on the downwind and landed the hard way. Everyone has to make their own decision.

flyaboy69
2nd Mar 2006, 02:22
Did you say that this happened yesterday?!!! Well, it sounds like one of those nightmarish scenarios that usually happens in the Sim. Any how, you tell me if this crappy situation doesn't constitute to use your PIC authority to land safely--this is as safe as it can get. We'll worry about the questions and answers, later. :*

ZeeDoktor
2nd Mar 2006, 13:26
I think you're all missing the point here. It boils down to two questions:

1. Why did they proceed to the destination when they knew they were going to be cutting on final reserve? Or is anyone saying they didn't monitor their fuel consumption?

2. Why did the backup power generator at Zurich airport not function?

Under the given circumstances, if I was brought in the cockpit during that landing I'd have done the same thing. But as usual, the errors happened way earlier.

I heard btw. the remaining fuel was 1.2t, not 2.5.

Another 2c....

captjns
2nd Mar 2006, 14:49
Let's not specuate until all the facts are in.

We can all agree that any competent captain in his or her right mind would never risk life and limb, and continue to an airport that was below CAT I minima with a degraded CAT III system if he or she had such knowledge.

I am curious to know if the dispatchers and or flight followers had knowledge prior to flight's departure of the status of the CAT III system, and if so, why didn't they red flag the NOTAMS section of the flight plan?

If the approach system was degraded while the flight was enroute and the dispatchers had knowledge of this was the crew notified via or ATC relay? That's the job of a dispatcher or flight follower, monitoring their assigned flights including relaying pertinent data to the crew to avoid such problems.

Forget about ground delays, re-routes, lower than flight planned altitudes flown. It has happened on some occasions that the ground handling personnel at the departure airport has input erroneous data in their computers to come up with an incorrect takeoff weights thus resulting in under targeted fuel burn. Competent crews never push back from the gate with inadequate fuel. Most add a little extra fuel for pucker factor or mom and the kids.

We as crews rely and assume the weight and balance information prepared by ground personnel is accurate. In most cases of automation, the weight and balance information is sent to the company dispatchers so they can generate a flight plan with planned fuel burns. The same regarding automation applies in this case… “Garbage in… garbage out”.

Usually breaks in the link of a chain can result in a catastrophic out come. The crew was very lucky that they are still alive and nobody went to the hospital. So let’s wait until the dust settles to see when and where the link in their chain broke. More importantly let’s hope that we as professionals are never faced with such a predicament.

AN2 Driver
2nd Mar 2006, 15:01
I think you're all missing the point here. It boils down to two questions:

1. Why did they proceed to the destination when they knew they were going to be cutting on final reserve? Or is anyone saying they didn't monitor their fuel consumption?



Question is where they cutting on the final reserve before everything went haywire? That is really the interesting bit which I am sure the report will reveal in due course, about 2 years from now.



2. Why did the backup power generator at Zurich airport not function?



That I am certain is being looked at pretty fiercly at this stage.


I heard btw. the remaining fuel was 1.2t, not 2.5.

Another 2c....

The figure Belair published was 2.1 tons at the gate.

AN2 Driver
2nd Mar 2006, 15:03
I am curious to know if the dispatchers and or flight followers had knowledge prior to flight's departure of the status of the CAT III system, and if so, why didn't they red flag the NOTAMS section of the flight plan?

If the approach system was degraded while the flight was enroute and the dispatchers had knowledge of this was the crew notified via or ATC relay? That's the job of a dispatcher or flight follower, monitoring their assigned flights including relaying pertinent data to the crew to avoid such problems.



That one I can answer I think. The downgrade of the first runway happened when they were on the approach to that runway, the downgrade of the 2nd runway happened after they went around. Nobody had a) ever experienced the downgrade of 2 independent runways at virtually the same time and b) nobody knew in advance.

handflying
2nd Mar 2006, 15:32
Departing MMUN-for LSZH i don't think cpt could have uplifted much more then 2,5T on top of fltplan with a full house (MTOW B767 out of MMUN).

Crew not necessarily arrived below min diversion fuel at dest, just maybe waited a liitle bit too long before going to altn after first GA. Did ATC advise crews no upgrade cat3B anymore expected for any rwy?

Zurich apt authority involved definitely:2 backup pwr failures at the same time?? It's like winning the lotery!

Final reserve 767 around 2T.

captjns
2nd Mar 2006, 16:15
This is what I like... Lets get all information... accurate information. Good stuff:)

Backtrack
3rd Mar 2006, 11:53
Departing MMUN-for LSZH i don't think cpt could have uplifted much more then 2,5T on top of fltplan with a full house (MTOW B767 out of MMUN).

Eh?
I note the poster flies a 767, but I don't know where he gets his figures from.
235 pax is not a big payload for a charter 767; say a ZFM (assuming no freight) of 117Tonnes. A 4,700nm, eastbound flight (10hours? - we already know that they departed at 2215 & landed at 0844). At 5.5T/hr (generous), the trip fuel would be 55T. Let's be generous again & say that the reserves were 5T. 3% contingency of 1.65T and some taxy fuel (0.35T) gives a required ramp fuel of 62T. Add this to the ZFW to give a TOM of 179T. I don't know the MTOM of Belair's 76, but 187T works for me & this is possible out of CUN with no wind, std pressure up to 38degC.
Seems to me that the crew knew that an LVO approach at ZRH was a strong possibility & added 30mins extra to account for the anticipated delays. What a good idea!
How they could have anticipated the multiple failures of ZRH's ground systems without the aid of a crystal ball...let's wait & see what the FBU have to say.

WindSheer
3rd Mar 2006, 12:29
Why are there so many ifs, buts and what ifs on this post. If my brother had been a girl he would have been my sister.....

The aircraft landed safely no matter what, end of story. No one knows how they would have reacted given the same circumstances - mainly because we dont know the circumstances!

flyaboy69
3rd Mar 2006, 16:58
Windsheer, I agree a 100%. See, with all due respect the majority of the posts on this topic deals with WHY things went wrong, and WHO was responsible, and so on so forth. The way I look at it is that I don't care why, who, how... did or didn't... stay in the moment; land; send those poor souls on their ways; NOW, we start asking questions.:D

ironbutt57
4th Mar 2006, 04:31
Better to be adjudged by twelve, than carried by six:ok:

handflying
8th Mar 2006, 10:40
Sorry Backtrack, didn't know there were only 235 pax on board; i thought full house and in that case a 30T payload is possible. Add this to a 92T DOW and your approximation of 62T rampfuel gives 184T. (Various MTOW for B763 exist; one of them 184612kg; not all 186880kg.) hence my statement.

FlyingCroc
8th Mar 2006, 18:25
It seems to me that there was no real issue of an emergency here. The aircraft took off from Cancun with the legal fuel, possibly even 2,5 tons extra. Arriving in ZRH the airport is closed because of Cat1 ILS availability in Cat3 WX conditions.

1) No problem, the aircraft goes around to the alternate (like the others)
2) The aircraft arrived low on fuel and try to "sneak in", questionable airmanship.
3) The aircraft was holding and running low, again request diversion.
4) If low on fuel to due crew error: "Declare an Emergency" and land regardless of WX or equipment condition. There is no need that ZRH had to approve a Cat1 approach.

Strange story, I hope the BAZL will inform us soon on this one?:eek:

handflying
9th Mar 2006, 12:32
Flyingcroc,

I think they arrived with MDF so why go to altn if dest has 2 sep rwys with cat3 equipment! (so not arrived low on fuel!) Then they GA possibly still with MDF but why go to altn if there is a second rwy cat3 equipped (can happen that 1 (not 2!) ils equipm downgrades-even if very rare allready-), probably ATC told them the segond one would be ok. So there is no crew error! Landed above final reserve fuel!

The day a missile falls on your altn apt what are you gonna say then? Crew error:they should have predicted it! I think the responsability relies allmost entirely with apt authorities; it's too easy to blame crews allways for unforeseenable events.

LYKA
9th Mar 2006, 13:18
Let's not specuate until all the facts are in.

We can all agree that any competent captain in his or her right mind would never risk life and limb, and continue to an airport that was below CAT I minima with a degraded CAT III system if he or she had such knowledge.

I am curious to know if the dispatchers and or flight followers had knowledge prior to flight's departure of the status of the CAT III system, and if so, why didn't they red flag the NOTAMS section of the flight plan?

If the approach system was degraded while the flight was enroute and the dispatchers had knowledge of this was the crew notified via or ATC relay? That's the job of a dispatcher or flight follower, monitoring their assigned flights including relaying pertinent data to the crew to avoid such problems.

Forget about ground delays, re-routes, lower than flight planned altitudes flown. It has happened on some occasions that the ground handling personnel at the departure airport has input erroneous data in their computers to come up with an incorrect takeoff weights thus resulting in under targeted fuel burn. Competent crews never push back from the gate with inadequate fuel. Most add a little extra fuel for pucker factor or mom and the kids.

We as crews rely and assume the weight and balance information prepared by ground personnel is accurate. In most cases of automation, the weight and balance information is sent to the company dispatchers so they can generate a flight plan with planned fuel burns. The same regarding automation applies in this case… “Garbage in… garbage out”.

Usually breaks in the link of a chain can result in a catastrophic out come. The crew was very lucky that they are still alive and nobody went to the hospital. So let’s wait until the dust settles to see when and where the link in their chain broke. More importantly let’s hope that we as professionals are never faced with such a predicament.


Unfortunaetly, over err, most airlines don't have flight following or an operational control system like the US. It's left up to the CMD...IMHO this should change.

FlyingCroc
9th Mar 2006, 16:26
Why divert? because the airport has just closed due to equipment failure and Cat3 conditions! If you arrive with MDF you should have fuel for a go-around and fuel to your alternate. I guess the chance of a bomb falling on your alternate is smaller than a crash due to not properly working ILS equipment. That's why all the other traffic diverted and that is why the Swiss CAA filed an incident report. We will see the results soon.

handflying
10th Mar 2006, 17:35
ok flyingcroc, but that's not the way i understand it happened according to what an2driver said: were cleared for lowvis app then controll told them to GA so nothing like apt was closed...anyway...if a poster can't continue based on arguments pointed out by other posters hopeless to talk cause i wasn't there.

I know in case i'd arrive>MDF being cleared for a lowvisapp then told to GA, then told segond rwy 'd be avlble for lowvisapp soon and then that one as well goes off i 'ld be quite angry...even if i'd have fuel enough. It should not happen!!

Hopefully you're allways calculating very good the risk of a missile on your altn (what's that in a 767?allways ldg with 10T or more?) Good job if there are still jobs with such a fuel policy...

FlyingCroc
11th Mar 2006, 08:27
Again: As an2driver said, they still had 10 min holding fuel, but still decided to shoot the approach despite the tower not having RVR and wind readouts. Again, the CAA will clear the situation. If it was an emergeny situation, I mean fuel low than obviously the pilot did the right thing and land in ZRH. However if he still had 10 min holding and diversion fuel then there was no emergency situation and he should proceed to his alternate like the other planes. I think this is also written in the Belair SOP's.

GeeJay
11th Mar 2006, 09:21
When I read most of the previous posts I realize that the vast majority has no idea about long haul charter flights. Turning back from CUN with a 767 even with full pax is not a problem. But taking extra fuel usually is.... Most of the time you have to justify the 2tons extra (Mom, kids.....) and the extra burnoff to carry them (700??Kg on such a leg). Pressure from the management is very high and they have it easy to say: "Look, how many diversion due to fuel?? Zilch!!! So next time, you better take the minimum AND the closest diversion...."
Then the decision to stay at ZRH after the go around. It is my destination, I have 2!!! runways catIII And the book says that I can go below minimum diverting fuel in such and such conditions. Then the s..t hit the fan and under "My Captain's authority" I decide to land here when it is safer than diverting with low fuel to land maybe on "fumes".
Good and sound decision.

Now it will be paperwork, inquiry and engineers sitting around a table discussing for hours the decision you had to take in minutes (or even less).

Fly safe,
GJ

FlyingCroc
11th Mar 2006, 11:26
Since when is diverting not safe. If it is company policy to fly with minimum fuel then they have to expect diversions, really simple eh?

F4F
11th Mar 2006, 11:39
GeeJay the vast majority has no idea about long haul charter flights
Apart from the obvious larger size of the figures involved, I'm kindda curious to learn about the differences between say scheduled short/medium and the mentionned long haul charter fuel planning?

bawbag
12th Mar 2006, 05:57
Hi

This was a bit of De ja vu for me.
I read an article in the New Statesman about this incident about 2 weeks ago picked up in a lounge in LHR written by (if I remember rightly) the CEO of Sane in London who was on this flight.

If you are interested, she gave an account of how she was moved from Business class to economy class due to a booking error and then had an argument with the Flight Attendent.

She mentions that the Captain came out of the cockpit and told eveybody there was an emergency....

It seemed a bit over dramatized but worth a read.

All the best

DoNotFeed
12th Mar 2006, 07:59
The distance to the alternate is in most flightplans great circle.
Extra fuel jigs into possible earnings.
Every chance is translated into payload.
The ILS at ZRH still is and was CAT 3B.
RVR is in fact only required beeing able to taxi the plane after auto rollout.
The wind was calm on first contact.
RVR was sufficient when available.
There was obviously no fault on the plane.
The only thing missing was an intermittant communication failure of a line on ground.

Technically this was a normal landing like every day (without disturbing steering inputs of a pilot).

A diversion in a scenario of just the required fuel.
Every guy who did a diversion due to airport closure knows about the resulting delays taking the crew almost certain into a fuel emergency.
These airplanes and ground facilities are far more sophisticated than radar vectors and traffic handling, this is for shure.
So the CAPTAIN did the only right thing, he DECIDED the safest way to take the flight to ground.
And he did it rubber first, we only can agree.:ok:

GeeJay
12th Mar 2006, 08:16
I cannot agree more!!!
I would like to add that even in civilized countries when you request to divert you have the great chance to first be put in the holding, hearing the phrase: "coordination in progress"....
On modern airports, operating with modern aircrafts, fog is not an issue anymore. I would have had a totally different attitude in case of thunderstorm, snow, ice...

GJ

jondc9
12th Mar 2006, 14:45
things do happen even with modern aircraft, fog, and "modern" airports...recall an american airlines 727 landing short at KORD a few years ago...granted a Cat 2 not Cat3 and the 727 is old and so is KORD...but things do happen, even in fog.

handflying
14th Mar 2006, 15:10
Exactly like previous posters say: if flyingcroc things that going to the altn with MDF results in him being the only one to go and fuel is not a problem means that he probably has never gone to an altn yet.

Good decision of crew! Fly safe!

FlyingCroc
14th Mar 2006, 19:07
I did diversions before and more than one. You are right that you will not the only one. That is why the regulations (in my company, I guess there are also regs by JAR Ops) demand that you arrive at the destination with at least 30 minutes of holding fuel in case of Low Vis Cat3 conditions. If unforeseen weather conditions arise inflight planning should maybe call for a diversion before arriving MDF at the destination.

handflying
16th Mar 2006, 10:56
Flyingcroc???? Where did unforeseen weather conditions arise in this case?

They had normal cat3 wx conditions with 2 operative independent separate...cat3B rwys when they first arrived at dest. So they went to make a cat3B app and land, end of story! They probably had more then MDF when they first arrived at dest! Then when they had started their first approach problems started. Analyse succession of events in time in this case. Your statement they should have diverted before arriving at dest because wx was cat3B doesn't make sense.
(And 2,5T fuel on top of flightplan (see previous posts!!!!read all posts!) is more then 30 min on a 767)

Again: almost complete responsability lies in zrh apt authority, not with the crew who did a good job.

sweeper
18th Mar 2006, 23:29
does,nt anybody do LOFT scenarios in the sim where this situation does/may arise?
:{ :{

aeropers
8th Apr 2006, 04:04
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e143/scalesoarer/3v297cFz.jpg

Here are the same cowboys landing short at a Swiss military airfield called Emmen near Lucerne on Thursday.

Actually 300m short - the displaced threshold visible is for aircraft less than 50t, the one for this a/c is 150m further down.

Aircraft was chartered to fly UN troops to the Balkans.

Another investigation we hope...

longstay
8th Apr 2006, 08:30
Aeropers, you seem to have a problem with this airline ?,

The runway is 8200ft long, do you know what weight this 767 was on touchdown ? have you seen the tech log to check that the spoilers were working or both reversers were serviceable ? NO ????????? Please don't judge the captain of an airliner when you presumably know nothing about it.
There's nothing as useless as the runway behind ya !

Mister approach
8th Apr 2006, 09:17
Why does a thread like this garner so much response?
Aeropers has a cross to bear, plain and simple.
The airline in question undoubtedly made the right decision regardless of the sequence of events.
Lets's not get too myopic in our reasoning here.
Jason.

Dani
8th Apr 2006, 11:10
While I agree that Aeropers (the person, not the institution) is a plague, I have to admit I got big eyes when I saw this picture. I think it's not allowed to touch down before any threshold. Might they have received some sort of approval? This picture is hard evidence, I must say.

Of course, we should bear in mind the reason behind but hey, you also start to wonder around when Ryanair does something strange or if a Southwest runs over. This is a Rumours network after all, and this picture is not a rumour...

bobdbuilder
8th Apr 2006, 17:07
Yes Dani, this picture (if not edited) is not just a rumour. But comments like "the same cowboys" and "Another investigation we hope" only show that Aeropers(the person, not institution) is not interested in healthily discussing how and why that picture happened and how to avoid it happening again. His intentions are purely at throwing mud at that airline as a vendetta or something on those lines. This, in my opinion, should not be allowed in this forum.

AeroMANC
8th Apr 2006, 17:40
Longstay,

Landing short of the threshold is not acceptable, this aircraft touched in an area available for take-off's but not for landings. The pavement ahead of the displaced threshold may not be of suitable load bearing strength. It is also possible this section was not protected by a full instrument or even a visual runway strip. If the aircraft had unserviceablities, this should have been accounted for by the crew when assessing the Landing Distance Available. If the figures don't add up then you don't land. Can only assume there was a significant unforseen tech problem with the aircraft, otherwise you must conclude this was cock-up!

AeroMANC

F4F
9th Apr 2006, 08:01
Looks like some info has been (on political grounds?) filtered by our dear moderators :eek:

Here I try to post again:
The same subject is treated (in German though) on:
http://www.flightforum.ch/forum/showthread.php?t=41099

... where participant Rust en Vrede alias Stefan makes the same acerb and superior comments as a certain aeropers, strange strange :hmm:

aeropers
9th Apr 2006, 09:27
Seems that my informant wasn't quite correct - the main reason for the displaced threshold at Emmen is to protect the arrester gear (no more Vampires or Hunters unfortunately but F5's and F18's). It can be removed in which case the original data is correct. On Thursday the Belair 'boys managed to miss it but still landed well short.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e143/scalesoarer/Q837u2dZ.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e143/scalesoarer/3v297cFz.jpg

ironbutt57
9th Apr 2006, 12:08
dear Mr longstay..well....I have no idea who this airline is, never heard of them before i saw that picture..(nice paint job though) but......that is NOT landing runway they touching down on...it is not A PART OF THE PUBLISHED LANDING DISTANCE for that runway...so your post is ridiculous....

what_goes_up
9th Apr 2006, 12:52
Ironbutt

You need to know, that this was a landing on a military airfield. The displaced threshold is there for other reasons than civil landings. Civilian pilots get a special briefing when they have to go there and this includes, if my memory serves me right, that you may land short of the "painted" threshold. So longstay's post is not that ridiculous. One needs to know all the facts to judge.

longstay
9th Apr 2006, 19:36
dear Mr longstay..well....I have no idea who this airline is, never heard of them before i saw that picture..(nice paint job though) but......that is NOT landing runway they touching down on...it is not A PART OF THE PUBLISHED LANDING DISTANCE for that runway...so your post is ridiculous....

Really ?

The point i was making and still am is that you don't know what you are talking about, why would you, you wern't there ? has the airfield filed a complaint ? no ?? well why not ??- to many spotters on here !

a little knowledge and all that.........

ironbutt57
10th Apr 2006, 19:02
Well, at the time I posted, I was not aware of the special circumstances at this particular airport..yur original post led me and others to believe it was ok to touchdown in a displaced threshold area if the airplane was heavy or otherwise..so knowledge comes from information which we all now have....:ok:

Wheeler
11th Apr 2006, 13:24
Going back to the original point .... (isn't it amazing how the thread wanders?) This sort of thing obviously happens all the time...

MEDIA RELEASE
2005/24
Final ATSB report: Aircraft landing at Sydney in fog conditions
02 August 2005

The ATSB's final investigation report has found that an Airbus A330 passenger aircraft that landed at Sydney in fog on 6 April last year did so because the adverse weather conditions were unforecast and the flight crew continued to manoeuvre the aircraft for a landing at Sydney past the time they had previously nominated as the latest time for a diversion to Canberra.

Since the occurrence safety action has been taken by the air traffic services provider and the Bureau of Meteorology to improve the reporting of weather information to flight crews and to improve the accuracy of fog forecasting at Sydney airport.

On 6 April 2004, at about 0625 EST, an Airbus A330-301 aircraft, registered VH-QPC, landed on runway 34L at Sydney airport in weather conditions that were below the landing minima. The aircraft was being operated on a scheduled passenger flight from Perth to Sydney and it had departed Perth with sufficient fuel for the flight based on the current Sydney aerodrome forecast. This forecast indicated that, when the aircraft was due to arrive at Sydney, the weather conditions would be adequate for a landing. However, when the aircraft was about 110 km southwest of Sydney the weather conditions deteriorated due to unforecast fog.

The crew used weather information provided by controllers when making decisions in response to the deteriorating visibility at Sydney airport. However, not all of the weather information was passed to the crew. This resulted in a reduction in the level of appreciation by the crew about the dynamic weather situation and, in particular, the rapid progression of fog across the runway complex.

The crew initially required an instrument landing system approach to runway 16 Right based on runway visual range information from Sydney Airport runway observers which did not reflect the actual visibility conditions. After being advised of a report from the crew of another aircraft about the visibility being better at the threshold of runway 34 Left, the crew of VH-QPC then decided to conduct an approach to that runway.

The crew had previously advised the air traffic controller that they would need to divert to Canberra at 0618. On the basis of the information available to them, the crew decided to continue manoeuvring the aircraft for an approach to runway 34L past that nominated time. However, while the crew were making the approach the fog moved across the threshold of runway 34L. The crew then conducted an autoland onto that runway in conditions that were worse than the landing minima specified by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The report (Aviation Safety Investigation Report 200401270) can be obtained from the website, or directly from the ATSB by telephoning 02 6274 6425 or 1800 020 616.


Media Contact: George Nadal business hours (and after hours duty officer) 1800 020 616

Jagbag
11th Apr 2006, 14:08
You can declare an emergency and land below minima if absolutely sure the aircraft will crash if you do not land.

FlyMD
11th Apr 2006, 16:06
Jagbag, is that what it says in your operations manual? wow...
And here I always thought that deviating from established rules and regulations, as well as declaring emergency was a decision a Pic could make if he deemed either to be beneficial to the safety of the flight... More things must have changed in JAA regs since the last time I checked :hmm:

Few Cloudy
11th Apr 2006, 17:25
Comes to the same thing don't it?

FullWings
11th Apr 2006, 19:38
Some people seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar about the actions of the flight crew in this incident. I would have thought that most of the investigation would be aimed at why they had to deal with this situation in the first place, i.e. the unrelated multiple failures at the airport itself.

Just what did the crew do which was not compliant with JAR-OPS right up to the last minute? :confused:

ACAV8R
12th Apr 2006, 14:50
If Cat 3 had been downgraded to Cat 1 because of equipment failure, AND the aircraft is inside the FAF, the p-i-c is allowed to continue the approach. Look-see is allowed on any Cat 1 approach. Providing he has "adequate visual cues" to safely accomplish the landing, that is allowed. The aircraft doesn't know the difference, it just locks on and keeps on going. IF, however, the ILS LOC & GS had failed, that would be grounds for an immediate go-around. Sounds to me like the skipper made a good call. That's why he/she makes the big bucks.

CitationTen
16th Apr 2006, 04:42
I'm a little confused, can someone clarify?...


Airport has electrical power problems: rvr and wind info no longer available. Aircraft therefore instructed to go-around, crew then declare short of fuel and emergency situation imminent.


Fair enough...


Crew commence approach, at final approach fix ATC informs that rvr below Cat1 minimum.


I thought the RVR and wind information were no longer available? How do they know the RVR is below Cat1 minimums now?

ACAV8R
16th Apr 2006, 17:44
RVR not required for Cat 1, only reported or observed visibility. Therefore look-see is permitted, or if inside FAF, allowed to continue approach.