BA088 Mayday

[apaddyinuk]

Apparently the BA088 from NBO declared a mayday this afternoon as it approached London. It has diverted into LTN by all accounts.

Anyone have any details?

[Avman]

I don't dispute your info but just find it rather odd that they diverted to Luton. Unless it was perhaps fuel related?

[kotakota]

Last time I checked my trusty Weetabix atlas , Luton was still the wrong side of London from Nairobi ?
If this really did happen , must have been commercial / weather decision and LHR was experiencing long EATs ?

[apaddyinuk]

Lets start this again then....BA088 FROM NBO (Yes planes are capable of flying from NBO to London nowadays and yes....Luton is considered a London airport SHOCK HORROR) has indeed diverted to LTN as a result of some incident...even proven on the BA website that the flight landed at 1633 into Luton and subsequently cancelled!!!!

Now the only info I dont have is to why this happened and I was kinda hoping someone out there in pprune world may know as you lot are always normally so sh1t hot on incidents like this!!!!

[Headset starter]

ba.com states the BA088 landed at LHR at 16:33.

The LTN-LHR sector was obviously lined up to happen, but things obviously changed and the aircraft landed at LHR instead.

HS

[Hotel Mode]

Aircraft left LHR for Lusaka 2 hours 30 after landing, the Luton diversion may just be a case of confused computers.

Luton maybe on the wrong side of London from BIG but how do you know they hadnt gone around at LHR. Anyway i suspect you'd be on the ground quicker at Luton from FL90 in BIG hold than you would at the more congested Gatwick. You'd also cause utter chaos going to Gatwick whilst ATC tried to descend you across the SE/E deps from LHR and LGW.

[Lord Lardy]

I'm surprised LTN isn't used more as an alternate for LHR, obviously depending on your type and weight. My company is obsessed with Gatwick and Stansted as alternates. In my opinion it creates further delays. A quick refuel in LTN and a short taxi and off you can go again down the road to the BNN hold.

A bit off topic so I'll shut up now. :\

[Rainboe]

The airlines don't like us using Luton. Still frightened we'll all start talking like Lorraine Chase.

[nippysweetie]

BA say it landed at LHR, so looks like computer gremlins as far as LTN claims concerned. Switch the PCs off and on again, lads.
Can't shed any light on the mayday claim. Frankly, Heathrow is such an ordeal these days that it's a wonder we don't get maydays from everyone funnelling in and out

[ETOPS]

Edited to add this:

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 :hmm: ) also showed the reasons.

There was a further sector planned LTN -LHR.

That the aircraft record wasn't updated with actual events is down to overworked ops controllers not editing their records..............

[anotherthing]

ETOPS

I don't know where you get your info from but it's wrong unless you are talking about a completely different flight! BAW88 landed at Heathrow, not LTN.

It was 15 miles south east of Biggin and informed it had its EAT. The pilot mentioned that he was a bit tight on fuel but and that he would need an improvement in the EAT. The EATs were constantly being amended and BAW88 got an improvement of 8 minutes. (They weren't actually real EATs by then, they were around 12 mins delay).

This was still not good enough, the pilot reckoned he had about 5 mins to diversion, so elected to go to LTN (at this stage the Biggin controller informed the pilot that if he declared a PAN, he would get a priority approach to EGLL but was told 'it's not that bad') The diversion was duly arranged and he was vectored towards LTN.

The A/C never actually entered the Biggin hold, it carried straight on through with a bit of vectoring and a 2000' climb (from FL140 to FL160) to make sure it cleared LAM stack.

As he was nearing BKY, he was informed that he would be able to get a straight in if he wanted to go back to EGLL, delays were now less than 5 mins and he would be given priority.

Round about this time he called a PAN.

He elected to try EGLL, and was being positioned for a straight in aproach. As he flew down the ILS (at about 9 miles), he declared a MAYDAY.

Landed at EGLL safely.

Reason given for being so short on fuel was that he was held down low for a while in Africa.

The reasons for things turning out the way they did will come out in the subsequent investigation, however I can categorically state it did not land at LTN!!

Apart from the exact point at when the PAN was called, the above is a very accurate description of events.

[Rainboe]

Mayday standard procedure if you are going to land with less than minimum reserves. This would make the aircraft a top priority with no go-around to be scheduled. It is a company instruction, but nothing to get excited about. Statistically, every so often a flight will get low like this. Sounds like they were on the ball and well in control of the situation, with an escape route planned and ready. With ATC co-operation, the situation was resolved. But then the word gets out........

[Roffa]

The only issue I have with aircraft turning up at LHR, in a busy TMA, short of fuel and declaring a MAYDAY is that runways will be sterilised to assure the landing and a number of movements will be lost thus increasing the delays for everyone else and maybe knocking someone else in to the same situation which means movements will be lost and so on.

If "just" a PAN is declared fewer movements will be lost but there will, again, be an increase in delays to everyone else.

There's always more than one aircraft out there, you know.

[MrBernoulli]

Roffa, the rules requires such things.

[411A]

Another UK airline short of fuel inbound to LHR.
Why am I not surprised.:rolleyes:

Now then, it is true that sometimes you are held down in Africa, nothing new there, OTOH one would have thought that the Commander would have forseen this, as it is a regular occurance, and uplifted just a tad more fuel.

Perhaps BA are used to steaming around in a low fuel state.:ugh:

[Old King Coal]

The rules for fuel are as follows:

Crews should plan to arrive overhead a destination aerodrome with, at the very least, fuel sufficient to:

A) Make an approach to land; and
B) Carry out a missed approach; and
C) Fly to an alternate aerodrome, carry out an approach and landing; and
D) For turbo-jet powered aircraft, fuel to hold for 30 minutes at 1,500ft above the aerodrome.

Additionally to this in the London TMA the phrase, "Expect no delay" actually means that 20 minutes of holding must be assumed and allowed for in fuel planning.

See: CAA AIC 82/2003 (Pink 92) (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P058.PDF)
and: CAA FODCOM 11/2003 - Aircraft inbound to UK with fuel approaching minimum (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200311web.pdf).

I'm not sure what's produced on BA's flight plans (this document is also known as the 'PLOG') but it's often the case that PLOGS make no allowance for "Expect no Delay" (at least the PLOGS at my company make no allowance and it's down to the commander to cater for this).

Therein, if one is held low across Africa (which has happened to me many times!), and / or one's maybe a tadge heavier than the predicted weight that the PLOG was based on, and / or that the headwind component is perhaps a bit more than anticipated... then these can very quickly eat in to ones 'Contingency' fuel (wherein Contingency fuel is usually 3% to 5% of the 'Trip' fuel and is intended to cater for a certain degree of unforeseen circumstances, as mentioned).

One will then arrive in the London TMA close to, or at, ones 'Company Minimum Reserve' / CMR (i.e. with enough fuel to make an approach, followed by a 'missed approach' and then diversion to your nominated alternate airport, be able to hold overhead your alternate for 30 minutes at 1,500ft, and carry out an approach and landing).
Nb. The fuel required to hold for 30 minutes @ 1,500ft is usually known as the 'Final Reserve' fuel.

In the UK there is no such thing as a 'Fuel Emergency'.

The percieved wisdom is that:

If a commander thinks he might land below 'Final Reserve' he should declare a "Pan".

If the commander knows he will land with less than 'Final Reserve' he must declare a "Mayday".

It sounds to me that the BA guys did it buy the book. :ok:

[EGBE0523]

* Operational Flight Info * Ba 88 -1 We 07nov
City Info Hour Local)
Nbo Estimated Time Of Departure 0955
Left The Gate 0955
Took Off 1024
Other Information
Flight Diverted- Contact British
Airways For Further Information
Estimated Time Of Arrival 1620 Lhr
Lhr Div Ltn Lhr
Flight Deck Crew Request
Passengers On Board 056)
Other Information
Not Diverting After All
Aircraft Landed 1627
Arrived 1633
Estimated Time Of Arrival 1620 Lhr
Ltn Div Lhr Ltn
Destination Station Limits
Passengers On Board 056)
Estimated Time Of Arrival 1615 Ltn
)>

[d71146]

That's a good un Rainboe.

[Mick Stability]

No doubt Shirley will give him a bottle of bubbly for taking Cirrus:ugh:

[anotherthing]

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 :hmm: ) 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:ugh::ugh:

[ETOPS]

but the diversion did not take place
Yes I think we've got that clear :ok:
But as to what was on the relevant FICO page at the time I have to say it was as I posted. Now with hindsight we can see that the manual inputs (by ops) didn't keep up with events - leading to all the various systems that are driven by that (ba.com, ceefax etc) giving erroneous info.
Having been in that situation before, I have learnt to "modify" our fuel policy - inbound to LHR - to allow for wider safety margins.

[lotman1000]

Could an expert please explain why, if the probability of arriving over the English Channel with too little fuel (EAT delays are likely, after all) was already known as the aircraft flew over the N Africa coast, if that was the case, a short on-route tech stop wasn't made at an uncrowded European airport to fill 'er up a bit?

Just asking, NOT criticising........would there have been FTL issues, any issues other than just cost and slightly delayed pax? Better than ending up with a MayDay situation, no matter how much that was a matter of procedure rather than of real and immediate danger?

[Rowardennan]

you lot are always normally so sh1t hot on incidents like this




More like full of it

[Old King Coal]

Flying is not an exact science... sometimes (most times) you're able to arrive in the TMA with sufficient fuel to comply with the regulations... but, just occasionally, one can get 'caught out' and with all the best intents one arrives with less then would be desired - and it can certainly be nip & tuck as to what to do (especially so when looking at the FMC's PROG page fuel on arrival prediction whilst crossing the N.African coast with 2+ hours to go). :uhoh:

When you put in to perspective the number of times folks arrive in the TMA with their fuel probably exactly on the money as per their PLOG... the occasional FU is only to be expected (imho).... indeed I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often; especially so given the pressure we're all under to take PLOG fuel ! :(

And always remember that, when sitting in your cozy living room / hotel room etc, the phrase that "Hindsight is a wonderful thing". So don't be be too quick to judge! :=

[Hand Solo]

I know 411A likes to bash the Brits but it would be interesting to see how many major US carriers arrived at their home bases each year on a "Minimum Fuel Advisory". Given that there is no similar mechanism in the UK to get priority other than declaring a PAN it would be interesting to compare the PAN/MFA levels. I'm sure he'll be along shortly to tell us why it's all different and better over there.

[CanAV8R]

Heh 411.
You are most likely one of those guys who sits around the bar somewhere in the world commenting about the price of fuel us poor Brits have to pay. Funny thing is my car gets 50 to the gallon and yours gets 14. Yawn..........
Sounds like a text book move the guys played plain and simple. Thanks for the comments!
:}

[Tootles the Taxi]

I've always been under the impression 411A was a Brit; just happens to be living in AZ?

[Gonzo]

This would make the aircraft a top priority with no go-around to be scheduled.

Uh-oh lads, we've been rumbled! The flight crew are realising that we schedule the go-arounds in advance!

Quick, burn the evidence!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

[sickBocks]

The monster EATs did come as a bit of a surprise. We departed an hour down the road into LHR and on initial contact with Laaandun were told of EATs of 25mins. :ooh: When we left BovingTON people were getting 35mins. You don't expect things like that when the Wx and AIS gives you no reason to suggest there's a problem (especially when you're 4000miles away in Africa.)

sB:ugh:

[wiccan]

One g/a.....one missed slot......
= delays = EATs [not] LHR, but things happen....
bb

[Del Prado]

what was the spacing in front when he was a PAN and were there any sent around in front of him once a mayday was declared at 9 miles?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<and declaring a MAYDAY is that runways will be sterilised to assure the landing and a number of movements will be lost thus increasing the delays for everyone else >>

I don't think so... unless things have changed since I retired. We'd make sure the space ahead of an aircraft with a fuel problem was bigger than usual to avoid a go-around but that's all.

[Roffa]

HD,

I don't think so... unless things have changed since I retired. We'd make sure the space ahead of an aircraft with a fuel problem was bigger than usual to avoid a go-around but that's all.

You've been retired quite a while and things have changed quite a lot.

If an a/c inbound has declared a MAYDAY due to fuel shortage then its nominated landing runway will be sterilised ie kept clear for it, from the time it is 15nm or 18nm from touchdown depending on whether it's landing on the nominated departure or arrival runway.

One thing's for sure, you wouldn't enjoy it as much now as you did before.

[anotherthing]

Del Prado,

to answer your question, he was given the non landing runway

[Del Prado]

thanks.

just curious like.

[Groucho]

I know there will be howls of protest from the BA gang but to me it looks 'untidy' and 'unprofessionally' handled.

Held down over Africa - there's a surprise?

Short of fuel for EAT

a) Did not plan 20 mins holding (as per UK, I gather) plus expected level problems
b) Did not seek (or could not get) stack swap
c) Did not 'splash and dash' inbound

Then changed mind when on a diversion and offered LHR 'straight-in' - 'somewhere around here' a PAN declared
1) Stick with a diversion plan is a good idea unless things are going WRONG - here they were NOT
2) It must have easily forseeable that a Mayday in BA's rules would be required with the return to LHR, thus getting in everyone else's way

I know this situation can happen - it happens to all of us, but Captains are in the seat because they are judged to have the 'experience' to foresee these events and plan accordingly. From my point of view this did not happen. Not having the Minimum Fuel Advisory option does NOT help:ugh:

Nota Bene: Not calling for hanging - just a bit less of the 'well done old chap' and 'did it by the book' - I do not have that chapter in my book.

[369toRingway]

Quote "2) It must have easily forseeable that a Mayday in BA's rules would be required with the return to LHR, thus getting in everyone else's way "

And how do you know he got in everyone else's way?

Not having a go just interested.:O

[Groucho]

If an a/c inbound has declared a MAYDAY due to fuel shortage then its nominated landing runway will be sterilised ie kept clear for it, from the time it is 15nm or 18nm from touchdown depending on whether it's landing on the nominated departure or arrival runway. - in my book (I have that chapter) I reckon that slows other folk up a bit especially when it is busy, don't you ?

'anotherthing' also tells us the departure runway was used so I would guess a few take-offs got delayed?

Of course, at Luton only the BA88 would suffer any significant delays.:rolleyes:

[369toRingway]

Only slows up the other traffic if there's any around to slow up.

[Roffa]

Only slows up the other traffic if there's any around to slow up.

Which of course, at LHR, there never is :rolleyes:

[369toRingway]

Does Heathrow not have any quiet periods then?

[easyprison]

I dont know of any airline that flight plans 20mins of holding fuel into any london airport.

It's recomended by the CAA, but that falls on deaf ears with oil prices through the roof.

[120.4]

369

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Hang on whilst I pick myself up off the floor. How often do you operate into Heathrow? The place is scheduled at 98% of capacity; it'll be a miracle if this didn't cause SOME delay.

.4

[120.4]

Perhaps that was unkind - I apologise.:O

If there wasn't any other traffic about I doubt he would have overflown Heathrow on his way to Luton, he would have just gone straight in. The fact that he elected to start that indicates there must have been traffic around to get delayed.

.4

[369toRingway]

120.4
No apology needed.
Operate at LHR 6 out of 10 unless I'm on leave!

[120.4]

369

Understood. ;)

.4

[pontius's pa]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that FARS require that the full 5% contingency, (or is it 10%, can't remember), of A from departure airport be carried as opposed to 5% of A from an en route airport.

Hence fewer US aircraft arriving at destination short on fuel.

[PaperTiger]

FAR 121.646 add 5% fuel for 'engine deteroriation', add 5% to forecast wind speed or add 5% fuel if forecast wind not measurable according to FAA standard. In addition to hold and diversion requirements.

[ETOPS]

I dont know of any airline that flight plans 20mins of holding fuel into any london airport

See my previous comment - sensible fuel decisions lead to stress free arrivals. It's not a case of "fill her up", but using experience to come up with a comfortable (but not wasteful) decision. As a result I have never diverted from LHR for fuel shortage in the 20+ years I have operated from there.

[BOAC]

ETOPS - I think 'ep' means "I dont know of any airline company flight plan system that flight plans 20mins of holding fuel into any london airport"? I'm with you.:ok:

[old,not bold]

EP

I dont know of any airline that flight plans 20mins of holding fuel into any london airport.

It's recomended by the CAA, but that falls on deaf ears with oil prices through the roof.Could you clarify that? It only costs the operator money when it's burnt, not when it's loaded into the aircraft, in reality. For the accountants, strictly speaking, it goes into "stocks".

If it's not used, the next uplift is that much less. It it is used, it was possibly needed to avoid a diversion.

My point being that if an airline does not plan 20 mins hold fuel, it may not be due to the beancounters.

I don't think that this would change much if you take variable fuel prices, additional weight etc into account, although a real expert may rise up to shoot me down about that.

[Del Prado]

Could you clarify that? It only costs the operator money when it's burnt, not when it's loaded into the aircraft, in reality. For the accountants, strictly speaking, it goes into "stocks".



the more you carry, the heavier the aircraft, therefore the more fuel used.


These incidents of 'fuel emergencies' are pretty rare into the London TMA, IMHO the system works well at the moment.

[old,not bold]

the more you carry, the heavier the aircraft, therefore the more fuel used.Yes, of course, but if you quantify that I wonder what the additional cost is? On a longhaul sector is one thing; what about short haul?

To quote an example; how much additional fuel is burnt to carry the fuel needed for a 20 mins hold at FL100 by a B777 operating a 3,500nm sector into LHR? And how much by a B737 on a 850nm sector into LHR? Does anyone know the answer?

If that 20 mins extra fuel means losing revenue payload then of course there's a real cost IF revenue is actually lost as a result (ie operating at 100% LF), but how often is that the case?

[411A]

I dont know of any airline that flight plans 20mins of holding fuel into any london airport.
It's recomended by the CAA, but that falls on deaf ears with oil prices through the roof.

I think 'ep' means "I dont know of any airline company flight plan system that flight plans 20mins of holding fuel into any london airport"? I'm with you.

I rather believe 'ep' meant every word.
Lets face facts here.
It doesn't matter what the price of the fuel is, it is either carry what is reasonably required, or divert.
Some companies choose to limit fuel uplift to the absolute bare minimum, others use a more reasoned approach...or at least many of their Commanders do.
It is, however, interesting to note that in the last few years, it is British carriers that have come up short.
No surprise there.
I rather suspect that if it was a foreign carrier, the UKCAA would have just a slightly closer look.
Nothing like having the home regulatory authority in your pocket.:rolleyes:

[old,not bold]

Nothing like having the home regulatory authority in your pocket.:rolleyes: Oh dear, now it's another thread about BA's wrongdoings......

[Rainboe]

To quote an example; how much additional fuel is burnt to carry the fuel needed for a 20 mins hold at FL100 by a B777 operating a 3,500nm sector into LHR? And how much by a B737 on a 850nm sector into LHR? Does anyone know the answer?

Carriage of extra fuel is costed at 3%/hr of extra fuel carried at start of flight. So your example- 2000 hrs extra x 3% x 8 hours=500 kgs fuel burnt carrying 2000 kgs extra initially. so you've used 1/4 of it just carrying it.
However- you want that fuel at the end of the flight, so of that fuel, you are burning 4%/hr during the flight to end up with that much at the end of the flight. Not sure of 777 figures- (say 7000 kgs/hr? Guess- 747 is about 10,000kgs/hr). So for 7000/3 (ie 20 minutes) kgs remaining end of flight, 7000/3 (=2,333) x 4% x 8hrs= 750kgs, so you would need to load 2333+750=3100 kgs of fuel to end up with 2333 kgs for your 20 minutes holding. If you don't believe that, try working the other way reducing 3100 by 3%/hr for 8 hours.

Pretty solid figures established by experience. This is why that '20 minutes' at the end of the flight is not popular with accountants. Statistically- once in a while you can expect occasional minor fuel emergencies. However the record of aviation is just about right- how many airliners have dropped out of the sky without fuel due to current fuel rules?

A lot of the 20 minutes fuel can be made by unused contingency fuel plus anticipated savings from being able to exclude your diversion (ie commit to destination) assuming certain criteria are followed.

*411A- not going to get suckered in on that fishing lure you floated! I think 20 minutes holding on every flight into the UK is bizarrely extravagant on a valuable resource. It is not flight planned, and rarely ever used. It is as safe to not carry it as long as your decision making process is brought forward and you take a divert decision earlier. That is the key point- thousands of flights can carry less fuel, but the point must be accepted that occasionally one or two flights will divert because they did not carry the extra fuel. Then you do a sum- is it cheaper to carry 20 minutes extra fuel for all flights, or accept that with less fuel, there are extra diversions (actually incredibly small in number). Remember, we're talking about probably a broad average of 750kgs per every 777 flight fuel burnt just to carry enough fuel to maybe delay or avoid the once in a blue moon diversion? The accountants tell us....don't carry unnecessary fuel- it's cheaper to accept a small number of diversions. That's good enough for me. Safety is not affected. The extra fuel just means you can hold longer- you can still have a crisis if you do not take action, you just have longer to play with before the crisis. It's a cost/benefit thing.

In my experience, extra fuel still often does you no good. Through having round trip fuel last month, I was able to hold for nearly 2 hours waiting for fog to clear, at 2000kgs/hr. It still didn't work- the fog didn't, although I thought there was a good chance. I would have been better off diverting that much quicker. So what good did that extra 4000kgs achieve? Nothing.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

There's lots of interesting stuff being mentioned here with regard to how much gas we're planning to arrive at destination with, but the fact of the matter is, that we don't have access to the 'crystal ball' or 'twenty-twenty hindsight' whilst at the planning stage prior to departure. It's my belief that it's the 'experience' and good judgement by the commander that will win the day.

You have only to experience a few departures from the US Eastern Seaboard and inbound for an early arrival slot into LHR to become acquainted with the issues in hand. You will certainly expect a minimum of twenty minutes holding. A departure from JFK will most certainly mean that you will be taxying for up to one hour prior to departure. The opposite can also happen... some years ago pushing back from Philly we actually taxiied straight to the departure runway, so we were airborne within fifteen minutes of pushing back (and not the expected one hour!). Having got airborne and looked at the FMS arrival time we found ourselves to be one hour early; plus the fact that slack tailwinds were in fact not true, but a fifty knot tail component... great news; but not really, because we were now well within the approach ban time prior to 6.00am. 'Company' wouldn't allow us to arrive early and, although we had the extra fuel on board, we couldn't hold for the one hour, so we were directed to land at Shannon for a refuel and go; therefore arriving into LHR approximately forty-five minutes later than our scheduled arrival time. Deterioration of the Shannon weather from being CAVOK to a howling crosswind right on the B747 limits didn't make life any easier... during the landing (still in the dark and lashing with rain) the No.2 engine reverse surged and pushed out a huge plume of flame; witnessed by a newspaper reporter sat in the aft of the aeroplane, who got straight onto his mobile to report the incident directly to his newsdesk! The news was immediately reported on UK TV 'breaking news' of a B747 landing in flames after a transatlantic crossing... the company chairman witnessed the news whilst he was having breakfast at home! As you can perhaps well imagine, all hell broke loose within company headquaters... the moral of the story is; even with the extra gas on board, it won't guarantee you having a nice day! Missinformation, either by a computer screen or a 'nurd' sat in seat-row 49A trying to get a news scoop, won't be discounted until the actual story is released by those in the know... even on PPrune by all accounts! The Irish authorities kept us in Shannon for the day/night whilst the incident was investigated... we 'blacked' the runway; not withstanding the fact that the wind increased in force to warrant the closure of the airport for a few hours! As for the crew... just a routine day at the office. The Guinness was fabulous!

TCF

[old,not bold]

Rainboe, The first para in your post certainly makes the quantified case for NOT carrying the additional fuel as a matter of routine, at least on long haul flights. You are the expert who's shot me down!

I simply cannot get my mind around how the arithmetic works for short haul, but then again I'm not aware if short haul flights can get delayed at LHR in quite the same way that long haul ones apparently can be.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Good post Rainboe... I was about to post similar sums, but I got myself diverted elsewhere.

TCF

[Roffa]

I simply cannot get my mind around how the arithmetic works for short haul, but then again I'm not aware if short haul flights can get delayed at LHR in quite the same way that long haul ones apparently can be.

ATC don't discriminate, SH or LH will get the same delay, whatever it happens to be when they arrive.

The only, perhaps avoidable, penalty LH get is when they pitch up before the end of the night jet ban, are not exempt and so and have to wait till 06.02 before landing. It's not unusual to have traffic arriving from 05.30 and then holding for 20 to 25 minutes.

Given the number of a/c that can land before 06.00 it's nothing more than a political sop that makes us continue with the 06.00 restriction. The 06.00 to 07.00 hour is then needlessly busy with lost of crossing tracks on base/final approach with knackered pilots and atcos working their socks off as ATC try to get back to no delays for the start of the 07.00 to 08.00 hour. Totally stupid imo.

Note: individual a/c of any type may, at any time, move slightly up or down the queue inbound as ATC look for the most efficient landing order down the approach, but time gained or lost is only a few minutes.

[easyprison]

To clarify my earlier post;

I bet that No Companythat flies into the London TMA adds 20mins of fuel onto the flight plan as per the CAA recomondation.

Though pilots according to their own judgement can carry extra fuel if they so wish.

So let's not make this a BA bashing thread- BA like all of the UK operators would rather carry less fuel and accept the cost of 1 or 2 diverts as its cheaper!

:)

[FullWings]

I do sometimes wonder at some of the posts on fuel policy/usage, especially from so-called "professionals".

There are times in most pilots' careers when they, for whatever reason, get close to their destination with less fuel than they'd really like. Then the important issues are that they deal with this problem a) safely and b) in a commercially prudent manner. From what I read in this discussion, the crew of the NBO flight appear to have done perfectly well in both departments.

There are always those who say they would never end up in this situation because they always take "enough" fuel. Oh yeah? "Enough" for what and do you ever manage to get any payload on board after the wingtips have touched the tarmac?

For those who don't know, Nairobi is a classic hot'n'high airfield with some interesting terrain not far away, leading to possible weight restrictions on a long flight (not to mention any performance MEL items). Sometimes a decision might have to be made to offload passengers and/or freight to get more fuel on board; the crew may have actually taken greater than flight plan fuel in anticipation of delays into London but had it burn off due to being held down, etc.

Once en-route, the crew would have kept track of the fuel situation; they would know it would be tighter than normal at LHR but as long as they could arrive above Company minima, there would be a chance of getting in and if not, there would be plenty of nearby alternates. They would have considered a refuelling tech stop in somewhere like southern France but this would have had duty hours implications and been quite costly: much better to reach UK soil where an aircraft can be recovered quickly by a standby crew if neccessary. On receiving a 35-minute EAT from London, they made the decision to divert to Luton (could have been Stansted, Gatwick...) then during that diversion were offered a 'straight in' to LHR. In safety terms, they now had no delay into a 2-runway airfield as opposed to a single and in commercial terms they were saving a diversion; easy decision I'd have thought. The reasons for the PAN and subsequent MAYDAY have been explained well enough on this thread - I suspect speed control and vectoring around the TMA used a little more fuel than planned so the relevant agencies were kept informed in a timely manner.

The system works, what's the problem?

[Rainboe]

I think the only problem is with Americans who have lifelong access to cheap and plentiful fuel supplies, much of it homegrown, and not taxed to the hilt. Who cannot imagine any reason not to 'fill 'er up, Jose!' Elsewhere, we have become more adapted to viewing fuel as a costly and precious item and learnt to work around that criterion. I guess it makes a far bigger contribution to the bottom line on this side. But they are learning- fuel costs are coming home, even over there.

[Danny]

Now that you've all done this one to death, you can concentrate on this thread: Media hysteria on low fuel states in 3, 2, 1... (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=299737) with the added bonus that it is a similar story about..., wait for it..., a US aircraft in US airspace! :ooh:

If ever there was ammunition for cutting down one of 411A's myopic attacks on British pilots, here's your chance! :E