Jet 2 737 Declairs fuel PAN (2/10, Spelling.... see me.)

[N707ZS]

Not a good day at the office for the pilot of this mornings Amsterdam Leeds Jet 2 flight. First good old LBA was fog bound so he held overhead only to divert to Teesside just as the fog came down only to go-around. He declaired a fuel PAN climbed to 5000ft and made it into Newcastle. 65 pax and 5 crew how close to disaster was he and how much fuel should he have had?

[Mercenary Pilot]

He plummeted and only just managed to avoid a primary school, a hospital and an old peoples home. :rolleyes:

[Shiny side down]

It's not a BIG, big deal.
It is a precautionary action. NOT unsafe.

A pan is required if you expect that you may start using reserve fuel.
Having made the decision to divert, the crew is probably now using diversion fuel. Unusually, a second diversion was required.
Therefore on arrival at the diversion, they may start burning reserves.
You want ATC assistance to avoid any further delays.

With weather conditions stated, then other aircraft may choose to divert also, but the aircraft expecting to use reserve fuel will need to arrive without delays.

Not close to disaster, because procedure was followed.

Difficult to say how much fuel he should have had. By all accounts, enough.

[slip and turn]

It was a reasonable question.

I count two diversions not one.

[Shiny side down]

Yes, seems 2 diverts.

Leeds to Teeside.
Teeside to Newcastle.

Fuel required for the trip would allow 1 diversion.
So by the account given initially, there was sufficient to make a second diversion, and enough fuel to only declare a pan.

Seems like a good day at the office, where all went according to planning.
:D

[Tandemrotor]

Consol (edited to add, post now deleted)

enough to divert to an alternate and hold for thirty minutes, prob more.

Are you saying 'Diversion Fuel' 'includes' 30 mins of holding fuel overhead the alternate?

Like everybody else has. ???

Or perhaps you meant the 30 mins of 'reserve fuel', after which the engines stop??

and he had enough fuel.

In the same way that the Iberia in another thread had 'enough' de-icing!

I think it's a fair question, for what must have been a rather unusual occurence.

Even a "MSN flight sim" pilot can guess that two diversions and a fuel pan is rather undesirable!

Seems like a good day at the office, where all went according to planning.

If that's a "good day at the office", I guess I should spend more time "planning"!

[Shiny side down]

A single diversion is undesireable. But you plan for it.
If the weather is looking pretty grotty, planning for a second would not be bad decision.

[Tandemrotor]

Shiny side down

In some companies, "If the weather is looking pretty grotty", planning for a second alternate is compulsory.

Choosing the RIGHT one, "would not be bad decision."

Shiny side down was exactly right to say a fuel 'pan' call is announced if it becomes apparent that an aircraft may land with less than 'reserve fuel'.

Presumably the situation in question.

'Reserve Fuel' represents 30 minutes holding fuel at 1500' clean, at planned landing weight at the alternate: - An aircraft uses relatively small amounts of fuel in the hold, when clean.

This is not the case for an approach and subsequent go-around, should that have been necessary at Newcastle!

A second diversion is rather unusual, and not something that reserve fuel (nor anything else!) is designed to cater for!

[perkin]

Sounds to me like a bad day at the office that turned out ok in the end.

Out of curiosity (puzzled SLF here), would it not make have made more sense to divert to Manchester or Newcastle immediately as being Jet2 bases they can presumably better cater for diverted pax, or are there more parts to the equation than that? Do ATC have any influence over where an aircraft diverts?

Just some thoughts, I'm certainly not trying to make any controversial criticism, sounds like the flight crew handled it by the book :)

[nomorecatering]

Can anyone tell me

what the clean 1500' holding fuel flow would be.

What does a go around and circuit consume

[100m down/10,000m up]

Can someone tell me what a "fuel pan" is.
If you are going to land with less than 30 min of fuel you declare an emergency, ie Mayday, Mayday, Mayday.
WHEN would you call a "fuel pan"?

[L337]

If you think you might land with less than reserve, then PAN. If you are going to land with less than reserve, MAYDAY.

[FullWings]

In some companies, "If the weather is looking pretty grotty", planning for a second alternate is compulsory.
That's true but that plan includes a choice of alternates, so that you have more than one option available if your destination is below limits. What it doesn't necessarily do is give you the ability to go to one alternate then divert to somewhere else from that original alternate.

In real life it may not take much 'extra' fuel to give yourself a nice selection of places to go; you're increasing the size of the area inside which you can reach another airport. If you wanted sequential alternates, it'll take a bit more gas to achieve...

[NigelOnDraft]

Assuming he followed SOPs (and we have no reason to doubt that), and he didn't make a Mayday, we can assume he landed with >Reserve i.e. the whole thing is a complete wind-up/non-event...
I would suggest a couple of RW changes at LHR last night put at least 10 inbound aircraft not far off the Pan scenario... ;)

[IcePack]

Agree NOD.
Why do we make a fuss about doing the job as per book.
My Company words it thus:
If the total fuel on board is expected to be less than FINAL RESERVE FUEL before landing, a PRIORITY APPROACH/LANDING must be requested. If the fuel on board reaches FINAL RESERVE FUEL before landing an EMERGENCY must be delared.
FINAL RESERVE FUEL = 30 mins Holding at 1500ft ISA at estimated landing weight on arrival at the alternate. Approx 1945Kg for a 763 at 120T land wt.(sorry don't know about 737 but a fair bit less)
So as once happened to me: Pan Pan Pan, Request a priority approach! ATC Are you delaring an Emergency? Me No but will be in about 200Kg,s. Funny got the priority approach as requested. No Drama just diverting. However we will be seeing a bit more of this as airlines sqeeze the fuel amounts carried as the price is nearly 1000$us a ton these days.
:)

[Shiny side down]

A pan is required if you think you might land with less than reserve fuel.
A mayday is required when you WILL land with less than final reserves.

Reasons why you would make these determinations?
Having made one diversion, and it's gone below minima, you may have sufficient fuel to go to the second. But you don't want to hang around. You don't want any delays, such as number 5 to land behind 4 dash8.
If you want ATC to help you, first they need to know the picture. A simple pan gets the message across very easily. It doesn't imply that everything is looking bad. It does imply that the crew are very much aware and in control of what is going on.

I wasn't flying yesterday, so I don't know what the weather was. But if I try to put myself in the same position mentally, and using a lot of supposition.

Forecasts may have indicated some fairly grotty weather.
The plog will be calculated as always with the normal fuel, and a choice of 4 alternates (for us, normally with the nearest alternate selected automatically, but the final decision rests with us).
Maybe knowing the sort of traffic you might expect at certain times of day and factoring in weather and local knowledge with that too, I would likely take fuel well above this computer calculated figure.

Similar situations can be encountered occasionally for London/Southampton/Bournemouth.

I've seen it happen a few times where the vis has dropped at Gatwick, Heathrow, etc. A quick listen to all the london weather built a picture of similar happening at Southend, Stansted, Luton, Southampton. It means a lot of other people may be in the same situation, so delays would be likely.

Perkin.
There is more to it than just where the company bases are. Newcastle may seem like a more appropriate choice than Teeside, but as we don't know the full details, we are hardly in a position to say if that was a good or bad choice. The crew operating had that information.

[despegue]

I'm always amazed when collegues and ops. designate an alternate that is not equipped for LVP's or doesn't have a CONSIDERABLE margin with regards to actual weather conditions only to uplift "minimum fuel". Mind you, I don't claim that this was so in this case.
Alternate planning should be done in the briefing room and re-evalued en-route.
That said, anyone can have "a bad day in the office".

[vespasia]

Ice Pack

"So as once happened to me: Pan Pan Pan, Request a priority approach! ATC Are you delaring an Emergency? Me No but will be in about 200Kg,s."

From an ATC POV Pan Pan Pan IS an emergency and the only way to request a priority approach due fuel (other than Mayday obviously). If you simply ask for a priority approach due fuel you won't get it. It may be that if you ask, there is no holding and no expected delays, but our rules are quite clear that you MUST declare a fuel emergency ( PAN or MAYDAY as appropriate ) before priority can be given. This arose because a number of airlines took the p**s and used " a bit short of fuel " to avoid holding.

Hope this clarifies!

[gatbusdriver]

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

More uninformed twaddle on this subject (from some) that has been done to death recently (BA into Luton)

This guy made two diversions and still landed with more than reserve, he was no where near disaster.

That to me sounds like a pain in the ass day in the office, which was dealt with professionally.

[DIRECTTANGODELTA]

I observed this incident yesterday, the 733 held at the LBA for 45 minutes at FL100 waiting for an improvement. At that time MME(1st alternate) was at 800-1000 metres so no problem, the 733 then headed for MME descending and on radar vectors for an ILS on 23. Once on the localisor the visibility was given at 500 metres and the pilot said he needed 550 metres, he sounded very nervous at this point and told the controller he was VERY low on fuel and needed to overshoot. The controller advised that vis was still at 500 metres and the 733 overshot at 300 feet with an immediate right turn to Newcastle and climbed to FL50. The pilot then said he would be calling a Mayday but never did, once at FL50 the 733 maintained 210 knots and on transfer to Newcastle ATC he again declared a PAN PAN and asked for a 3-4 mile final and priority approach. It obviously landed without incident.:):)

[NigelOnDraft]

My personal philosophy is to always have a Plan B.... And when Plan B becomes A you need a new Plan B. A Plan C while Plan A is feasible is probably a bit OTT ;) Of course, each successive Plan B becomes more tighter on rules / commercial factors etc.
Seems our friend has a similar philosophy, kept everyone in the loop, and despite some adverse factors, still landed above Reserves on Plan B Mk2 :)

[perkin]

There is more to it than just where the company bases are. Newcastle may seem like a more appropriate choice than Teeside, but as we don't know the full details, we are hardly in a position to say if that was a good or bad choice. The crew operating had that information

Indeed. The crew/ATC themselves haven't surfaced on this thread yet, so none of us here really know the exact details. My point was more along the lines of whether company bases are considered more suitable as diverts, I wasn't questioning, and never would as I'm not sufficiently qualified, the decision of the crew in this particular instance and apologies if it sounded that way. I'd be interested to know if there are any set criteria for selecting an alternate, or whether it simply comes down to the nearest airfield with suitable weather and landing slots. (mods, please move this post if its more suitable for the SLF forum)

Sounds like it was all dealt with in a thoroughly professional manner - bit of a bad day in the office, but we all have those once in a while!

[Bam Thwok]

Well said perkin and gatbusdriver.....
I'm lead to believe that they landed with 2000kg in tanks....NO ISSUE !!!
Get a life you lot...

[perkin]

It patently IS an issue, any aircraft getting low on fuel is an issue, as it stops being an aircraft not long after it runs out, particulary if its flying at approach altitudes!

But it seems in this case it was perhaps a bit of a close run thing, but no major drama. My experience so far with Jet2 (around 150 sectors as pax) suggests that all their crews would behave with the utmost professionalism in any situation and this instance demonstrates it - presumably the pilot could've landed just below minima at Teeside just to get the bird on the ground, but chose to make another divert, got to give them some credit for that, it must be extremely uncomfortable to be in a situation like that :D

[Bobbsy]

No, it was a non-issue. The whole point of the policy on calling a "fuel PAN" is to get the aircraft on the ground while it still has a safe fuel margin. In this case, since a Mayday was never called, they obviously still had at least 30 minutes reserve at the time they touched down.

Considering (according to somebody who was there) they'd already held for 45 minutes at Leeds then had a missed approach at Teeside (because he went by the book and didn't cheat on visibility minimums), to make it to the second alternate still carrying the legal 30 minute reserve says to me the captain acted in a safe professional manner throughout and used his discretion to carry rather more than minimum fuel, probably because he knew there was grotty weather in NE England.

I'm only one of the SLF members but I'd be very happy to fly with the crew in question up front!

Bob

[Dirty Mach]

was he wearing flared trousers with his uniform and a white man's permed afro?
:}

[slip and turn]

It was a non-issueDisagree.

It was an issue. Imagine the workload on the flightdeck after the vis at Teeside was revealed.

It ended ok with more fuel left than it might have, almost certainly because there was much more good planning than bad in the whole trip, but when it starts going wrong, boy does it go fast :hmm:


Conclusion? Lots of useful revision learning can be prompted by this thread. It was real, it was non-routine, and it upped adrenalin flows.

[xetroV]

It is no major issue, since this crew did not deem it necessary to declare a Mayday. One can assume they would have if it had been likely that they would use part of those 30 minutes reserve fuel.

So:

- they landed with more than minimum reserve fuel
- they had taken enough extra fuel to allow allow for two subsequent diversions
- their fuel planning was therefore appropriate in view of the weather forecast
- the crew made prudent and timely decisions before running out of options (they did not commit themselves to their first alternate or waste time by staying in a holding for too long)
- they correctly informed ATC about their situation, to ensure that an actual fuel emergency would be prevented.

In short: the crew was nowhere near the disaster scenarios painted by some posters, precisely because they dealt with the situation professionally. A job well done by this crew and thus a good (albeit long and probably tiring) day at the office. :ok:

[slip and turn]

If you look carefully no-one had painted disaster scenerarios in this thread(carefully steered and edited version, thereof) except the mischievous mercenary pilot :rolleyes:

The initial post (chocolate eclairs aside) was a good intro to a useful discussion that needs to do the rounds constantly.

[Bam Thwok]

I say again.....they had 2 tons on arrival at NCL....that's after holding 45mins, diverting to 1st alternate (MME), approach and G/A the divert to NCL.
2 tons on a 73 is no way near 30 minute min reserves...prob closer on an hour !
Don't assume that because a "PAN" call was made, was wholely down to a low fuel state and it's Operations Manual definition.
It's possible the crew were by this time getting a bit "twitchy" and only wanted to assure priority into NCL.
At no time am I lead to believe that it was...."a close run thing" !

[100m down/10,000m up]

I'd like to get back to the phraseology issue.

Pan, pan, pan denotes an urgency: no immediate assistance is required.
Mayday, mayday, mayday denotes distress: immediate assistance is required.

What is the point of declaring a fuel pan (thinking you are landing with slightly more than the reserve fuel) if you do not need ATC assistance, ie priority? I would always go for mayday and associated paperwork.

[vespasia]

I'd like to get back to the phraseology issue.

Pan, pan, pan denotes an urgency: no immediate assistance is required.
Mayday, mayday, mayday denotes distress: immediate assistance is required.

What is the point of declaring a fuel pan (thinking you are landing with slightly more than the reserve fuel) if you do not need ATC assistance, ie priority? I would always go for mayday and associated paperwork.

Think you've answered this yourself. A fuel PAN says that the assistance is required when you reach the destination, be it a diversion airfield or not. If you're already en route to that airfield then you will receive a priority approach and landing, therefore immediate assistance is not required. A Mayday call means "get me on the ground now by all means possible", and to be honest probably means something has gone badly wrong. I can think of numerous scenarios which could generate a PAN for fuel - more holding than expected due to blocked runway/snow clearing etc. or diversion as in this case (wholly appropriate, IMHO ), but not many which would generate a MAYDAY.

:)

[DIRECTTANGODELTA]

Some valid and interesting points made, I am slightly confused by some of the pilots comments when he was given the MME RVR on approach, he sounded VERY concerned and said we are VERY low on fuel!! Perhaps he was shocked at the reduction in RVR on the field during his approach?? Maybe he didnt know the vis at NCL was 8 kms?

Perhaps we will never know the full story but obviously the remaining fuel in the tanks has been confirmed above, your anonimity is safe!!:\

[slip and turn]

Here we go ... so now we have a fuel pan whch appears to be different to a pan pan pan, which in turn have nothing to do with Mayday mayday mayday or a fuel emergency. Anyone else see the intermittent fog appearing as usual?

On this new basis I extrapolate that all transatlantic traffic would be well advised to declare a fuel pan on encountering unforecast headwinds midroute...d'oh!

[Some Catchy Name]

I'll ask the obvious question of why he was so intent on an overshoot at his prmimary alternate when he was established on a published segment of the approach. Iy makes it seem from the post that as soon as he was told the vis was below his mins, he decided that he was going to have to overshoot. Surely not the case I hope. Regardless if the vis was called below his mins, who cares, he's on a published segment of the approach, he should still be able to continue to DA and and if having the required viz, and being in a safe position to land, land at his primary alternate.

[100m down/10,000m up]

Thanks! It's always good to hear an opinion from an UK ATCO.

[Right Way Up]

Some Catchy Name,
Not if if the RVR was stated before the outer marker/equivalent point. There would have to have been an improvement to 550m RVR for him to continue the approach past that point.

[mmeteesside]

The aircraft was passing 5 miles out (for 23) when the 500m RVR was declared to them

[Tandemrotor]

According to DIRECTTANGODELTA, this aircraft went round from 300' at Teeside.

Would that have been his DA by any chance?

Any 'insight' Bam Thwok? Direct TD?

Edited to add: It sounds like they went round from DA, due nothing sighted, rather than because the vis went out of limits.

The crew have been variously described as "concerned", "nervous", "twitchy", and apparently made a 'pan' call when there was absolutely no need whatsoever! (Even though they said they were VERY short of fuel??)

Not sure this can be presented by anyone as a 'good day'.

All very confusing.

[DIRECTTANGODELTA]

I am fairly sure they continued to 300ft but not 100%, the pilot asked for an immediate right turn to NCL as he was overshooting and climbed to FL50. I dont understand what all the fuss was about if he had over 2 tons of fuel in the tanks? but it cetainly came across from the pilot that a problem existed, would another approach at MME not have been worth it as the RVR was only 50 metres below his minima?

[Ivan aromer]

What has been written here would only seem to confirm that Jet2 have some very good operators working for them.
A tricky sitaution no doubt but very professionally handled by the crew.
I think it is probably tea and biscuits with Philip. lucky chaps both!
Well done.

[Sir George Cayley]

Well if the chat includes biscuits - result:ok:

On entering the room if you see no biscuits :=

Funny how 2 tonnes of fuel looks to different peeps. Ask a 'bus driver!

Maybe a few more kgs next time? Min trip-fuel policy?

But everyone you walk away from was a good 'un.

Sir George Cayley

[AltFlaps]

Firstly, this type of event DOES happen (I got caught out in unforecast conditions some years ago - similar scenario).

The only reason I can imagine for tea and biscuits is why he didn't continue and land regardless at MME.

I know there'll be lots of shock horror at this statement, but if a Mayday was imminent (approx 1250Kgs remaining total on a 733), would you really leave a mainstream airfield (CAT I only granted) with a serviceable runway at the end of an ILS ?

I wouldn't ! You might just find yourself in an even worse position 15 minutes later with absolutely NO OPTIONS whatsoever.

My brief to the guy on my right would have been "we are landing regardless - do you understand ?"

[Starbear]

There is something not ringing true here. It may just be the loss of data in the re-telling from various sources but we have one individual insisting that the a/c in question landed at NCL with 2 tonnes (well in excess of final reserve fuel) and he holds this up as proof that this incident was a non event, which indeed it would be if this is correct. BUT we have another person who states that the crew declared a PAN and ALSO requested a 3 or 4 mile final. Please don't suggest that this is normal ops if fuel is not an issue.

And at risk of being seen to be critical: "holding at LBA for 45 minutes with the alternate vis (or RVR?) at 800 to 1000 metres" ? Yes its well above Cat 1 (for now) but is it wise/acceptable for an alternate after that amount of holding time? I can already hear some answers coming in, so to keep it short, it's not acceptable for my lily-livered spineless peace of mind.

[Right Way Up]

Starbear,
I agree with you about the security of an alternate. Unfortunately JAA ops now allows for alternates to be below Cat 1 when airborne. Take the example of a foggy day in London in your shiny new minibus. You can hold at LGW with 100m RVR, whilst your alternate, say STN, is 200m RVR. You then get a single failure "ils receiver fault". Now CAT 1 you are now officially stuffed!

[Tandemrotor]

DIRECTTANGODELTA:
I dont understand what all the fuss was about if he had over 2 tons of fuel in the tanks?

As Starbear says:
There is something not ringing true here.

Or perhaps as others have said, they were just "twitchy"' or "nervous"

Wonder if the pax realised?

[vespasia]

Slip and turn

Here we go ... so now we have a fuel pan whch appears to be different to a pan pan pan, which in turn have nothing to do with Mayday mayday mayday or a fuel emergency. Anyone else see the intermittent fog appearing as usual?


Sorry, my earlier comment may have been misleading. There is no such thing as a fuel PAN, all I meant was a PAN PAN PAN which was declared due to fuel levels. Same rules apply! No intermittent fog.

Definition of MAYDAY is A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance

Of PAN is A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle or of some person onboard or within sight but which does not require immediate assistance

As before, if you need the assistance i.e. priority approach when you get to the airport and not before then that's a PAN. If you need the assistance now, then that's a MAYDAY.

:ok:

[llondel]

How good is the fuel monitoring in the aircraft in question? Some gauges just work better and are more trustworthy than others. If the crew in question had ever been caught short by a dodgy gauge in the past then I can quite see why they'd be keen to get on the ground once below an apparently fuel level.

[bigbusdriver06]

His biggest challenge was finding Teeside in the Jeps/Aerad under D for Durham.

[blablablafly]

he sounded VERY concerned :{

He should be and he was... There was NO problem with the diversion in my book, good airmanship what we are paid for.

It would have been worth a thread here if he continued an approach while the RVR was below his minimums just to get home...:rolleyes:

[calypso]

Lets look at the numbers, roughly as I no longer fly the 73.

Holding for 45 minutes at FL 100 - 1,5tons
Divert to Teeside is about 60 miles so lest call it 350 kg including the approach.
Ga and divert to NCL about 50 more miles another 500 kg with a 3 mile final approach.

So if they landed with just above final reserve (lets call that 1200 kg) :
They arrived at LBA with just over 3.5 tons (about 1hr 20minutes endurance), held until they had just over 2 tons (about 50 minues endurance), carried an approach at Teeside and a on the ga they had 1.7tons (about 45minutes endurance). Landed in NCL with 1.3 tons (just over 30 minutes endurance).

If they landed with 2 tons add 700 kgs to all of the above and 20 inutes endurance.

All very rough figures but either way it seems to me they did OK. If they declared a PAN and landed with 2 tons is perhaps a little overcooked if they landed with just over final reserve I would not have bothered with Teeside. Personally I would be after a rock solid alternate at that stage. In any case all legal and acording to the rules.

[Tandemrotor]

I think it was the selection of Teeside as the choice of diversion that seems a little 'odd', when there were clearly better choices available.

Can't find a forecast, but the actuals show for 3 hours from 1020-1320, the visibility never rose above 500m in freezing fog.

How strange this was 'apparently' unforecast???

Of course the met office have been known to make mistakes. Which is where 'airmanship' comes in. Can't help wondering what the forecast was on the 15th though.

[lederhosen]

It certainly seems to have been adequately handled. How many of us have ever had to divert from an alternate?

Last time I went around on the NG (due to windshear) we had used the best part of a ton extra before we were safely down, and that was without a diversion.

Better to err on the side of caution than the other way around!

However with the benefit of hindsight the choice of Teeside looks a little strange.

[N707ZS]

Teesside is "probably" the best place to divert to get the pax back to LBA. And it is where Jet 2 used to do most of their circuit bashing until recently.

[excrab]

I would also add the opinion that it was a non event.

It would seem that they held at Leeds until they were down to the fuel they needed to divert to the commercial alternate, but knowing that the weather there was a bit iffy they had put enough fuel on the a/c to fly an approach and if needed then proceed to Newcastle which they knew was wide open.

Isn't this what we do every day (the fuel planning, not the diversion)? I certainly try to in such circumstances, and only if limited for take-off mass only have fuel for the second alternate (in this case NCL) missing out the first choice. It all seems sensible, they complied with JAR OPS requirements, they did their best for the company (and almost certainly kept ops informed through handling agents or direct) and had a back up plan as well that worked.

[HOODED]

Seems to me the whole thing was a non event. The ac landed safely after making a best attempt to get the pax to the airport they had book to fly to.

The real shame is that the ac or crew were not Cat3. All the other Jet2 733s were getting in at LBA. Given LBAs weather record Jet2 seem to make good use of the Cat3 which was fitted for that very reason, it's just a shame their 752s cant use it. Other operators dont seem to make best use of the facility either TUI and KLM spring to mind.

I just hope Bridgepoint get the message and flatten the touchdown point to stop those 757s floating and get them on the Cat3 list too (Luton managed it!). Too much money that though perhaps it would be better spent on building some more retail outlets in the terminal for all those 757 pax to use when their coaches get back from Manchester! :ugh:

[I Just Drive]

Its a shame if the vis was 500M that the controller missed that extra 5 in the middle of the readout that vanished seconds later. :rolleyes:

[lagerlout]

The aircraft crew were CatIII , the runway in use wasnt!

[HOODED]

Guess the wind was favouring 14 then! Oh well thats another story isn't it 3.5 glideslope means CAT3 not possible so I'm told though I've heard rumors that Cat2 is possible. Given that on LVP at LBA 14 has the better RVRs more often than not thats another thing Bridgepoint should be looking at instead of improving revinue from shops. A few less diversions is a few more pax moving through the terminal after all!:ok:

[lederhosen]

If the aircraft and crew were autoland capable as Lagerlout has suggested then it begs the question why they were diverting in iffy conditions to a marginal cat 1 approach, thus further limiting their options.

Then again Hooded suggests something completely different a couple of posts earlier. Other posters have further blurred the waters. Who knows?

We received very clear directions recently from the german civil aviation authority (LBA) when fuel was an issue, to give preference to airfields with two separate runways and approach systems. The directive was a bit more complicated than that, being Germany, but that was the gist of it.

Manchester would seem to fit the bill quite nicely and is I understand a Jet 2 base and has reasonable road connections to Leeds. But it is easy to be wise after the event.

On a related topic I often find alternates filed by the company to make no sense. Ronchi (Trieste) and Pula which we regularly file as alternates for Venice in reality make no sense. If it is foggy in Venice it is normally just as foggy up the coast and unlikely to improve quickly, and subsequantly ending up with a planeload of passengers in Pula is a logistical nightmare!

[HOODED]

"Manchester has decent road connections to Leeds!" Yes it's a motorway called the M62 BUT it is not always an easy journey and in poor vis at LBA you can bet the M62 "Britains highest motorway " will be foggy at best closed due to an accident at worst. If LBA was on LVPs and the wind was in favour of 14 then LBA is only as good as MME ie Cat 1 unless you can take a tailwind onto 32 which is CAT3. MME and DSA are Cat 1 as far as I know but MAN is Cat 3. Jet2 seem to favour MME as although not a base it is less busy and the journey back to LBA is often quicker than MAN.

[52049er]

AltFlaps was spot on here and seems to have been ignored. The very worst that could have happened was a landing with a vis 10% below minima. Don't forget a Capt can do whatever he sees fit to ensure the safety of the a/c. And if the vis had got worse below 1000' rather than above he'd have continued anyway (the 50m less would, in reality, make no difference to whether he got his vis ref). "Aaaaannnnnnddddd Ddddddddeeeeeecccciiddddeeee..."
Continuing below 1000' on a UK ILS with 500m vis on a runway is not exactly test-pilot stuff now is it - it would have been a very quick tea and biccies.
All of the above assumes the worst case (ie bu**er all fuel). By the sounds of it that wasn't even the case. A non event IMHO.

[Tandemrotor]

You guys are incredible.

Landing below minimums at a dodgy alternate, simply to cover up a bad decision, when there was ALWAYS a much better choice available???

'And when we get to decision height, I will say Decide very slowly'

- 'Absolutely no problem at all. I'll just say Go Around very quickly!'

Some of you guys are real cowboys.

[52049er]

Edited to say ... ;)

[CargoOne]

Around 5 years ago Russian "Sibir Airlines" (now S7 Airlines) TU204 on the way from Frankfurt to Novosibirsk has diverted twice, first from Novosibisrk due to low visibility, then from Kemerovo(?) due to excessive crosswind and on approach to Omsk both engines quit due to dry tanks. Glided from someting like 3500ft and overran the runway on landing (no fatalities).
To make this story short - sometimes you should have the balls to break landing minimas...

[Tandemrotor]

sometimes you should have the balls to break landing minimas...

And sometimes glider practice is handy!

Try to find a film called "Always"

I highly recommend it.

[lederhosen]

The general view seems to be that the crew did nothing wrong and that this is a non event. However we can all learn from situations like this. From my perspective either:

1. They believed they had plenty of fuel, decided to have a look at Teesside and then finally landed at Newcastle with a reasonable amount remaining (2 tons was suggested). In this case they are probably regretting making a pan call (at least if they have ever heard of Pprune)!

2. They were getting close to alternate fuel, diverted to Teesside and realised a bit late it was not going to work. The latter scenario is less professional, but they got away with it.

Why they thought it necessary to make the pan call if they landed with 2 tons remaining is an interesting question. Perhaps they confused minimum alternate fuel, often around 2 tons and final reserve fuel which would be about 1.2 tons? Or maybe in the high workload situation a little 'finger trouble' with the fmc made them think they would arrive with less than was actually the case?

Landing below reported minimums is definitely not a good idea at least on the tea without biscuits front, and has been covered in detail on other threads. Obviously busting limits is better than crashing. But nobody so far has provided any evidence they were anywhere near running out of fuel.

[calypso]

One thing is busting the minima on an emergency and quite another with a wide open alternate 50 miles away and over 2tons (ie almost one hour) in the tanks. Not for me thanks.

[omnidirectional737]

Have to agree with Calpyso. You can break the minima in an emergency but this wasn't an emergency.

[Ivan aromer]

Intresting thread. With an aircraft in the hold at the operators main base, do I here "Commercial pressures" in the decision making process of the crew with regard to the decision to divert and to where?

[tonker]

There will always be commerical pressures regarding where you end up, but in the 2 years i have been at Jet2 i have never flown with a Captain forced to take plog fuel or less fuel than they have decided to take. Quite often it is the captain that eggs ME on to take more.

Each company has it's own rules and culture, but fuel planning isn't one of the bad points at Jet2. :ok:

[Tandemrotor]

Don't think anyone has criticised how much fuel they took off with.

Just whether they used it wisely?

[Skydrol Leak]

N707,

can you speak a plane English buddy....???

[Starbear]

Having been the subject of a Pprune "post mortem" myself on one occasion, I can imagine how the crew involved must feel at this dissection of their actions and so will offer no further comment on that day's events but this thread seems to have taken a rather alarming turn in a different direction.

I refer to the rather glib suggestions that one should just "bust minimums" as if it were only a case of operating outside the legal remit and so may have to endure an interview with tea and biccies (or tea and no biccies or even no tea and no biccies etc).There is so much more to such a decision than whether or not you are breaking the law (national; international or simply company).

Do those suggesting such actions ever consider why an NDB approach has higher minima than a localiser approach or why a LOC/DME has higher than Cat1 and why that is higher than Cat 2 etc etc.? Do they ever consider that these minima are there because obstacles in the Missed Approach path or cone or funnel or whatever are taken into consideration because the aeroplane may NOT be smack in line with Runway centreline upon reaching minima due to the vagaries/tolerances associated with the approach aid in use? Why does Cat 3B not require a DH? In other words the specific minima exist, in many cases, to save lives (your lives) not just to save an interview with the top man.

Of course NONE of this applies if you have no other safer options such as uncontrollable smoke, no fuel reserves at all, nowhere else to go etc. but even those reasons don't guarantee you'll be safe but it may be your ONLY option and if your ONLY option was to fly a manual ILS right down to the runway in zero vis then you would give it your best shot because you have NO other options.

[llanfairpg]

NO OTHER OPTIONS

Gosh havnt you got big writing, do you feel insecure?

[Starbear]

llanfairpg

I am genuinely sorrry, that was all you could take from my post and have to confess on re-reading it this morning, it may even come accross as pompous. This was not my intention but it happens to be an area I feel particularly stongly about. I hope the slight edit will reset the focus on what I believe are important points

[bigbusdriver06]

I cannot think of another profession where a bad day at the office (not a major incident) becomes the subject of such public scrutiny.

Okay, under a different thread I've rubbished some decision-making at the CAA, but we haven't a clue who made it and anyway it was the result of a decision that was considered, not made against a critical time restraint. It may have wasted public money.

In this case, our comments are targeting one specific crew. They know who they are and so must dozens of other pilots. They made a decision to the best of their ability and many of us may have made the same one, and here we are analysing their every move. To have thousands of the general public and journo sharks lapping it all up makes it 100 times worse.

Perhaps I'm just too thin-skinned, but if I was on this crew reading all this stuff I would probably be so demoralised that I would hang up my headset and call it a day.

We have the option of reading Pprune or not. This crew have no option as to whether they appear on Pprune, and like it or not they are here in big red lights.

Pprune has achieved communication that would have been unheard of ten years ago and is of huge benefit to our professional community in so many ways. But we are now using it (unwittingly) to throw one of our number to the lions with the crowds cheering from the sidelines. Is this what we really want?

[Right Way Up]

From the information given it seems the crew did not break any rules, and landed at an alternate with a fair sum of fuel. They may have been a bit hasty with a pan call, but thats an area where the full facts are unknown. At worst it was a conservative decision. If thats the worst I would be accused of in my career I would be very happy!

[ISO100]

Bigbusdriver06

"To have thousands of the general public and journo sharks lapping it all up makes it 100 times worse."


Speaking as General Public, I would have no problem flying with this airline or this crew after reading this thread. A difficult situation appears to my untrained eye to have been handled professionally. It is reassuring to know that this and many other incidents related here are handled with professionalism and in safety.

It is for you the Pilots to make your opinions known and where you make it clear that there is no issue there can surely be no issue as far as the customer is concerned!

I sincerely hope that helps a little.

[bigbusdriver06]

Thank you ISO, that does start to turn things positive.

Right Way Up, okay but there are others here examining the minutae and opening up cracks which some of us might gloss over. I still wouldn't like to be the victim!

There's also an Air Safety issue. How many of us will now think of Pprune first before declaring a PAN?

[Right Way Up]

Bigbusdriver,
I agree its not nice to be centre of attention. I believe in most cases the worst critic would be the pilot himself, however well they dealt with the situation. Without belittling Pprune if I am in a dicey situation Pprune would not be up there in my priorities.

[vespasia]

Ijustdrive

Its a shame if the vis was 500M that the controller missed that extra 5 in the middle of the readout that vanished seconds later.

Two things:

1) As an ATCO, I'm surprised you want me to lie to you. Shall I conveniently forget the extra few knots of wind that might put you out of crosswind limits? How about knocking a few seconds off the vortex wake delay? Or not mentioning that turbulence the last lander reported? I wouldn't do any of those things-it's called professionalism. :=

Don't get me wrong, if you have an emergency, I will do everything I need to to help you, and if it involves bending or breaking rules, so be it - in an emergency all bets are off and I'll discuss with the rulemakers after you're on the ground.

2) Wouldn't work anyway - all IRVR readings are monitored and recorded and, believe me, the CAA do check them against RT tapes to make sure we pass IRVR changes as soon as they happen (as required by the air traffic bible)

At the risk of repeating myself, from an ATC viewpoint this crew got it right. They didn't land out of limits, they diverted to a suitable alternate and they declared a PAN to ensure that when they reached that alternate they were given a priority approach. The PAN issue is a bit of a smokescreen here - from my POV it's always better to declare a PAN now to prevent a MAYDAY later. Any ATCO worth the name will have no problem with you doing so. If the Jet2 guys are reading this thread, and I'm sure they are, good call fellas.:ok:

[CAT1 REVERSION]

Well said VESP,

There are some idiots on here who think they are big and clever by writting drivle! GO BACK TO YOUR SIM's, and any moderators reading this, please consider making PPRUNE a secure site, if thats not possible, please fellow aviators (I also include ATCO's and all other aviation employees) DO NOT GIVE THESE PEOPLE THE TIME OF DAY, THEY HAVE NO PLACE ON HERE QUESTIONING PROFFESIONAL DECISIONS!!! (Plus there is lots of commerciallly sensative information posted on here for all to read, including the jounalist kind!)........

IMHO the crew did as they should have, we all know what happens if you bend the rules, it can easily end in a bent a/c, and as said above if it's an emergency, all bets are off. As flight crew, we should make decisions that are first and foremost SAFE!

Rule No.1) Fly SAFE
Rule No.2) Remember Rule number 1

[perkin]

There are some idiots on here who think they are big and clever by writting drivle!

Indeed, CAT1...:rolleyes:

[Mach trim]

vespasia,

"Shall I conveniently forget the extra few knots of wind that might put you out of crosswind limits?"

As an atco how do you know the sop,company or afm crosswind limits or the limits and experience of the pilot on that type?

By the way in regards to crosswind limitations. It is maximum crosswind demonstrated for takeoff and landing. It is the maximum demonstrated under certification by a test pilot. Correct me if I am wrong.
If you surpass these limits it is your ass if theres a problem but you may legally do so the limitation is Max demonstrated. Any lawyers out there ?


"If you simply ask for a priority approach due fuel you won't get it."
I disagree with this statement also.

Before getting to the pan pan stage where you might go into final reserve,
why not keep the controller in the loop earlier?

Yes he probably will not be able to help you on a bad day but he may give you priority. Yes it is his or her right not to until you declare a PAN or Mayday
it depends on the situation.

I requested priority without a pan pan and mayday once.
After holding for 10 minutes.

I was at minimum diversion fuel and I stated to a controller in Barcelona either clear you me for the approach in 3 minutes or I will divert to my alternate, LEGE. They did not want committ to a EAT, after repeated requests
for one.

I was then cleared for the approach. That day I was lucky, of course being at final reserve and a second diversion is a different story.
Planning for 2 diversions will mean a lot of fuel and reports to the Chief Pilot.

What the hell do I know ? I am here to learn.

[vespasia]

Mach Trim
Think you may have missed the point a little:
"Shall I conveniently forget the extra few knots of wind that might put you out of crosswind limits?"
As an atco how do you know the sop,company or afm crosswind limits or the limits and experience of the pilot on that type?
By the way in regards to crosswind limitations. It is maximum crosswind demonstrated for takeoff and landing. It is the maximum demonstrated under certification by a test pilot. Correct me if I am wrong.
If you surpass these limits it is your ass if theres a problem but you may legally do so the limitation is Max demonstrated. Any lawyers out there ?

Which is exactly why I will always give you the actual wind and not try to second guess you!
I requested priority without a pan pan and mayday once.
After holding for 10 minutes.
I was at minimum diversion fuel and I stated to a controller in Barcelona either clear you me for the approach in 3 minutes or I will divert to my alternate, LEGE. They did not want committ to a EAT, after repeated requests
for one.
I was then cleared for the approach. That day I was lucky, of course being at final reserve and a second diversion is a different story.
Planning for 2 diversions will mean a lot of fuel and reports to the Chief Pilot.

Obviously can't speak for the controller above, but again, in the UK, you should be given the EAT. If I couldn't give you an EAT and you responded as above you would be given an IMMEDIATE route to your selected diversion airfield. As in my previous replies, if you declare a Pan you WILL get priority. If you have enough fuel to reach your diversion what makes you think you should have priority over everybody else who has also been holding?
Yes he probably will not be able to help you on a bad day but he may give you priority. Yes it is his or her right not to until you declare a PAN or Mayday
it depends on the situation.
See above!
Before getting to the pan pan stage where you might go into final reserve,
why not keep the controller in the loop earlier?

Agree 100 percent. If you let me know early, I can plan for the situation, perhaps avoiding the need for you to declare a pan at all.
"If you simply ask for a priority approach due fuel you won't get it."
I disagree with this statement also.
You can disagree all you like but in the UK you MUST declare a Pan for this before being given any priority.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[spotwind]

Dont ya just hate this site sometimes ?

Gives all all n sundry the abilty to spout their knowledge of JAR ops etc etc ad nauseam .

Give the crew a break !

They planned in accordance with JAR, they executed what is a typical crap weather day at work, in accordance withy JAR. They are based at LBA, many will know what that can mean. So they end up in newcastle. So what !

A pain in the bum but, No biggie. Really ??

[Tandemrotor]

spotwind

Most diversions aren't accompanied by a 'pan' call.

With sensible planning, they shouldn't need to be.

All anyone is trying to understand, is why their 'planning' resulted in twice as many diversions as normal??

That's all.

[Cyclone733]

2 diversions followed by a fuel PAN call and people are complaining. Sounds like the flight deck crew were prepared for the conditions and carried out their jobs well in difficult conditions.:D

Having heard a crew from one of the larger carriers uming and ering about wether they had a fuel emergency on their first diversion and finally agreeing that they did when told of a 5-10 minute delay. It sounds like it was a timely PAN and was related to the possibility of another missed approach and further diversion.

Would I feel comfortable having this crew fly my family around?
Very much so

[dolly737]

... It is the maximum demonstrated under certification by a test pilot. ...If you surpass these limits it is your ass if theres a problem but you may legally do so
You may be surprised to learn that there are quite a few operators out there who have included these “demonstrated” figures plus far more restricting numbers for wet/contaminated runways into their OM-A or a QRH/OM-B supplement, thus becoming a hard limitation, which must not be exceeded. :=

[Chesty Morgan]

I wonder if anyone of you armchair pilots have stopped to consider what might have happened if they hadn't declared a PAN bearing in mind the vagaries and inaccuracies of local weather and the flight plans!?

Now, playing devil's advocate! As far as busting minima ONLY in an emergency imagine this. For instance...The weather at all UK airports is below your minima, and is due to stay that way forever(!), you have umpteen hours of fuel onboard. What do you do? Wait until you are in a fuel emergency/low fuel situation or land regardless?

At the point the PAN is declared the aircraft is now in an emergency. The Commander would have been well within his rights to land at MME below minima...wouldn't he?

[NigelOnDraft]

At the point the PAN is declared the aircraft is now in an emergency. The Commander would have been well within his rights to land at MME below minima...wouldn't he?No... IMHO

Firstly, you are "never within your rights" to land below minima. It might be the only option possible... but you have still broken the law. The circumstances under which it occurred would see whether it was reported / followed up or even prosecuted :{ In most cases for professional aircrew, one would hope no follow up was required, other than discussing the lessons to prevent recurrance.

Secondly, I would suggest something as drastic as busting minima is like landing below Reserves, and would probably be a Mayday type context... Read Pan as "I need some help / priority handling" to keep in the ruleset. Mayday is the next step when you need top priority to minimise the extent of busting the ruleset :ugh:

Just my 2ps worth...
NoD

[Chesty Morgan]

NoD, I agree with you. It was supposed to be rhetorical sarcasm...sort of!

Although I would say the Captain is well within his rights to do anything to ensure the safety of his passengers.

[Tandemrotor]

Chesty Morgan

I'm staggered you are a pilot! (apparently)
The weather at all UK airports is below your minima, and is due to stay that way forever(!), you have umpteen hours of fuel onboard. What do you do? Wait until you are in a fuel emergency/low fuel situation or land regardless?

In the real World, in such circumstances, you would be legally required to nominate 2 SUITABLE diversions, BEFORE TAKE OFF.

You would be stupid to waste this diversion fuel getting yourself into a situation where you had to land below minima!

As has been pointed out, you would be breaking the law, not to mention, potentially operating outside the capabilities of the aircraft/approach aids!

I didn't realise there were so many cowboys around!

I accept that there may be incredibly unusual situations, totally outside the control of ANY crew, whereby a landing below minimas is the only option. But it is absolutely a last resort, whose safety cannot be assured.

When there was ALWAYS a better choice of diversion just down the road, I think this crew (and you) would be hard pushed to justify such an act!

They have broken no rules. Though from what you have written, you might have!

[off watch]

Starbear & Tandemrotor - agree completely with comments about minima busting.
Regarding IRVR's , bear in mind that these are taken from transmissometers sited some way from the runway centreline & at a height much lower than the cockpit of a commercial jet. Although they are the definitive reading for minima, they might not give a true picture of what you may or may not see of the runway.
I don't know what the current system is, but in the 90's we had to send IRVR computer print-outs to CAA Flight Ops together with movement logs which they would correlate with company minima to check for infringements.

[Chesty Morgan]

In the real World, in such circumstances, you would be legally required to nominate 2 SUITABLE diversions, BEFORE TAKE OFF.

Yes I'm well aware of that! I was trying to make a subtle point, which is obviously lost on you.

And of course, "in the real world", the weather can change after you have departed can't it, or maybe not on your planet! Must you be so naive?

If the situation warrants it then I'd rather break the law than glide serenely into a smoking hole in the ground and be responsible for 150 coffins! I think I could justify that don't you?

[Donnie Brascoe]

did someone just shout "Grow up children" well if they didnt they should have .. this is the type of thread that journos love... for goodenss sakes.. if you havent flown out of LBA then you have no idea of the variable feast that awaits you. Cat 3 on a June day or windshear on the calmest looking TAF.. yes been there and done it. However they diverted.. they decided diversion minima was below they went to NCL, my only gripe why a 6 mile final? They did a good job.. they had a priority landing it was non standard at the second diversion. Landed with 2 tonnes .. could have almost gone back to LBA with that...

what is the problem with you people.

maybe its about time licence numbers were published with posts, we could then see who are thegenuine people who post and who are the people who sit on the end of the runway with an ear piece in their ear.

Do people sit on the end of the runway watching the 400th 737 take off that day for a reason ????? waiting for the inevitable ???

there used to be a journalist on Radio 4 many moons ago who described the people who slowed down to watch an accident on the motorway as "Ghouls!" .. why is that seeming appropriate

they planned
they diverted
they didnt land below wx minima ( no matter how tempting )
they had enough fuel ( obviously not a min fuel day well done )
they went to a second airport and landed successfully
end of day

they were diverting to second airport .. and declared a pan .. its was a non standard day a pan should not be criticised when caution has been exercised ... surely thats what paid for .. to ensure the immediatesafety of the pax the crew etc etc etc


how many carriers recommend min fuel nowdays ??????????????????????

Given the number of people who post on this site with not a PPl,CPL.ATPL etc to their name i am now seeking a site that i can criticse my GP on for his/her pure medical negligence given i have no medical knowledge. But hey this t'internet thing is a free for all ...................

sad thing is some people may read this and then write an article on it ...

[Tandemrotor]

Actually Donnie this thread was simply fading away until you resurrected it!

I'm not entirely sure an intricate knowledge of LBA is required in order to comment on the conduct of what should have been a very straightforward diversion within the UK!

Anybody know what the TAF for Teeside was on the morning of the 15th?

Drop me a line if you need my licence number.:rolleyes:

[transilvana]

I think guys that you have focused to much on the PAN PAN fuel story and forgot the basics on fuel planning.

Met +- 1 hour should be aboved minima on destination and alternate. For alternate planning you have to take in consideration 1 step above, that its for CATII we take CATI and so. So why the guy decide to overshoot at 300ft on alternate? knowing 500mRVR you overshoot at your IAF and go for next one. I think the guys just tried to get to the nearest one fast and forgot this, now someone can f..k them cause they did it wrong, the rest of the PAN PAN story is out of the question.

[Smudger]

This is why I always put enough fuel on.

[Tandemrotor]

If this crew had any problems, it wasn't lack of fuel.

At least not at the outset!