PDA

View Full Version : AC-66 has to repeatly declare MAYDAY to ATC before given clearance


Sorry Dog
7th Oct 2017, 14:52
Surprised this hasn't been discussed here yet...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/low-fuel-787-had-to-declare-mayday-repeatedly-to-ind-441893/

Incident: Canada B789 near Hyderabad on Sep 19th 2017, ATC tries to divert aircraft despite several Mayday calls following two diversions (http://avherald.com/h?article=4af4dc97)

ExXB
7th Oct 2017, 16:12
TSB report
TSB Report#A17F0230: C-FGEI, a Boeing 787-9 aircraft operated by Air Canada, was conducting flight ACA46 from Toronto, ON (CYYZ) to Mumbai, India (VABB) with 14 crew members and 177 passengers on board. During the descent into VABB, ATC cancelled the approach due to a runway excursion by another aircraft. After holding for one hour, the flight crew elected to divert to their alternate airport. Shortly thereafter, ATC notified ACA46 that the alternate airport could not accommodate them because they were at maximum capacity. The flight crew consulted with the operator’s Operational Control Centre (OCC) and the decision was made to divert to Hyderabad, India (VOHS). Enroute to VOHS, ATC notified the flight crew that VOHS was also at maximum capacity and could not accommodate them as well. The flight crew declared a MAYDAY due to their low fuel situation and were given a straight-in approach to Runway 09L where they landed without further event. The operator reported that ATC continued trying to divert the flight or attempted to place it in another hold. The flight crew had to declare MAYDAY four times before ATC cleared them for the approach into VOHS. The TSB is in contact with India’s AAIB.

DaveReidUK
7th Oct 2017, 16:18
Flight was AC46 CYYZ-VABB (or "AC-46", as Avherald quaintly renders flight numbers), not AC66.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
7th Oct 2017, 17:02
Dear God. I feel for the crews who operate in that area..

Mariner
7th Oct 2017, 20:00
After declaring a Mayday, the time for requesting clearances has passed. If you don't get speedy cooperation from ATC, you inform them where you are going.

Cows getting bigger
7th Oct 2017, 20:38
Indeed, there are some places where you 'just do it' and argue on the ground.

aterpster
8th Oct 2017, 00:36
Dear God. I feel for the crews who operate in that area..

Indeed.

I also feel for westerners that venture into that cesspool.

Long Haul
8th Oct 2017, 01:34
Well done to the crew for dealing with a super stressful situation after such a long flight.

cappt
8th Oct 2017, 03:05
Gray hairs for everyone involved, make it a double.

galaxy flyer
8th Oct 2017, 03:27
I’d flown up from Bangalore one night in Challenger. We were directed to do a 360 which became a “hold at present position, legs your discretion”, no EFC. 45 minutes later directed toward Mumbai, when we finally got to Arrival Control, asked for umpteenth time for EFC. The controller simply said something like, “it’s 3 minutes per arrival and you’re number 12 or 13”. About that tiime, a local left the radar maze with, “I have to divert to Ahmadabad now and am proceeding direct, request clearance”. Controller argued for him to stay, he was now #5 for approach. Captain simply said, “you said that 20 minutes, we’re enroute to Ahmadabad now”. There were flashing lights everywhere.

ATC Watcher
8th Oct 2017, 07:01
Would love to hear the tapes as the media reports are a bit contradictory. But this seems to indicate once more that both Controllers and perhaps aircrew are not fully conversant with Emergency communications .
Minimum fuel = Mayday . Period.
Clearances (authorizations) are not needed in emergency.

An airport filled to capacity can be a reason to refuse a diversion request under normal circumstances, , as the aircraft will not have full support , proper parking space or even stairs , but definitively that does not apply to a flight in emergency. That part the Indian CAA should re-enforce to its controllers.
No-one should have to repeat 4x a Mayday to get attention.
My advice is for crew to always to squawk 7700 when you encounter resistance in an emergency , this generally calm down the other side...if they have radar that is .If not , the other option is switch to 121,5.
Telling ATC what you are doing as opposed to waiting for an ATC instruction is also an option.

Heathrow Harry
8th Oct 2017, 11:51
I suspect they are conversant - they just have experience that suggests that some people abuse the MAYDAY call..................

FLEXJET
8th Oct 2017, 12:01
Indian ATC has definitely a problem!

underfire
8th Oct 2017, 12:07
Air Canada with a 789....that is a story in itself.

The decision to divert after an hour in hold, why was that? (especially with the typical capacity issues there)

Sucram
8th Oct 2017, 12:32
Had to declare a Mayday to Spainish ATC once to get their attention and a direct routing, we had a heart attack victim which they knew all about but ignored our requests for a direct to the alternate.

underfire
8th Oct 2017, 12:42
Do they have GPS?
:E
I guess my question is, and probably what they were thinking at HYD; (and Heathrow Harrys comment)

Diverting to HYD, calling mayday 4 times enroute with low fuel, why didnt the ac just call mayday and land at original destination?

RealUlli
8th Oct 2017, 13:19
The reason for the cancelled landing clearance is stated in one of the links in the first post. Probably this one: https://avherald.com/h?article=4ae9377c&opt=0

I don't know Mumbai airport, but AFAIK, the normal procedure when approaching reserve fuel while in a holding is to divert instead of declaring an emergency. Usually, with correct flight planning, that should be the safest option. However, when you arrive at your alternate and get told, "you can't land, we're full", things get interesting. :uhoh:

On the other hand, you, underfire, AFAIR are a professional pilot and should know better than me... ;-)

(Disclaimer: I'm just an SLF)

ATC Watcher
8th Oct 2017, 13:44
RealUlli : get told, "you can't land, we're full", things get interesting
This is where listening to the conversation would help determine who said what or misunderstood who. Airport full means gates and parking positions are full . an Airport decision .Nothing to do with ATC. That does not mean ATC can't land aircraft , they just won't be able to gets services. Happens relatively often , especially with massive diversions , due weather, blocked runway , terrorism , etc... Google Teneriffe 1977 or Halifax 9/11 if you want to see photos of examples. Safety first.

misd-agin
8th Oct 2017, 14:37
Maybe the Air Canada crew speaking Canadian confused the British English speaking controllers? Eh?

OldLurker
8th Oct 2017, 14:47
It's all very well, but ... There were a lot of flights diverting. Suppose this wasn't the only one approaching Hyderabad with a low-fuel Mayday. Suppose another one got there first and couldn't get off the runway because the airport was full? That didn't happen in this case, but you couldn't barrel on and land anyway in that situation.

underfire, I guess they didn't land at the original destination because there was a 737 in the mud at the end of runway 27 and presumably they couldn't use 14/32 for whatever reason?

oliver2002
8th Oct 2017, 14:54
14/32 was unusable, heavy rain and tail wind. AMD was full, GOI too. HYD was filling up fast, MCT & DEL only other alternative. Complete closure of BOM certainly overloaded ATC.

Airbubba
8th Oct 2017, 15:06
Maybe the Air Canada crew speaking Canadian confused the British English speaking controllers? Eh?

In my experience the BOM controllers often have a strong Marathi accent and talk faster as they get excited.

WHBM
8th Oct 2017, 15:11
14/32 was unusable, heavy rain and tail wind.
Tail wind at both ends, was there ?

Hotel Tango
8th Oct 2017, 15:17
Maybe because of vehicles attending the incident on the other runway?

Tigger_Too
8th Oct 2017, 17:14
Tail wind at both ends, was there ?

Never been to Gib?

underfire
8th Oct 2017, 20:58
underfire, I guess they didn't land at the original destination because there was a 737 in the mud at the end of runway 27 and presumably they couldn't use 14/32 for whatever reason?

14/32 was unusable, heavy rain and tail wind. AMD was full, GOI too. HYD was filling up fast, MCT & DEL only other alternative. Complete closure of BOM certainly overloaded ATC.

From all of the posts, looks there was a lot going on, which is not evident from the OP news brief.

why hold for an hour before deciding to divert....nothing gets cleared that fast.

as noted everything was filling up, so the 'news' of calling mayday 4 times enroute for clearance seems a bit like, well...

oliver2002
9th Oct 2017, 05:53
Tail wind at both ends, was there ?

Wind was 320/18, but visibility crap due low clouds and heavy rain. It seems a Thai 772 managed to land on 14.

Sorry Dog
10th Oct 2017, 01:57
http://i64.tinypic.com/i6fqyq.png

That flight path looks like the controllers and the autopilot were playing Tron for a while...

Nimmer
10th Oct 2017, 07:26
Would love to hear the tapes as the media reports are a bit contradictory. But this seems to indicate once more that both Controllers and perhaps aircrew are not fully conversant with Emergency communications .
Minimum fuel = Mayday . Period.
Clearances (authorizations) are not needed in emergency.

An airport filled to capacity can be a reason to refuse a diversion request under normal circumstances, , as the aircraft will not have full support , proper parking space or even stairs , but definitively that does not apply to a flight in emergency. That part the Indian CAA should re-enforce to its controllers.
No-one should have to repeat 4x a Mayday to get attention.
My advice is for crew to always to squawk 7700 when you encounter resistance in an emergency , this generally calm down the other side...if they have radar that is .If not , the other option is switch to 121,5.
Telling ATC what you are doing as opposed to waiting for an ATC instruction is also an option.
Just to clarify a point above. Minimum fuel declaration is NOT a mayday for ATC. In the London TMA, all we need to do is inform the crew of the delay. If the crew then declare a Mayday obviously maximum priority is then given.

ATC Watcher
10th Oct 2017, 10:56
Minimum fuel declaration is NOT a mayday for ATC
You misunderstood me ( or more accurately I was not clear enough)
EU-OPS and ICAO says this : The commander shall declare an emergency when calculated usable fuel on landing, at the nearest adequate aerodrome where a safe landing can be performed, is less than final reserve fuel.“
Further :
Terms like “Minimum Fuel” or “Fuel priority” are not recognized terms and should not be uses by crews. When Priority is required the terms " MAYDAY [x3] shall be used.
The use of these words has already led to accidents . The changes were done after Avianca 52 in JFK.
So yes, if a crew mentions minimum fuel it is not treated as an emergency by ATC. Hence the need to call MAYDAY if you need priority. That was the case here apparently It is why they had to do it 4 times to get priority that is interesting. .

tescoapp
10th Oct 2017, 11:08
"minimum fuel" is an official EASA term and should be understood by all ATC in the EU.

Means any deviation from present clearance will result in below final reserve fuel on arrival at alternate.

persay it should only be used after a divert has been started as your committed to the alternate airport.

I believe it is in MATS part 1.

aterpster
10th Oct 2017, 15:52
This is what the FAA's AIM says about it:

5−5−15. Minimum Fuel Advisory
a. pilot.

1. Advise ATC of your minimum fuel status hen your fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, you cannot accept any undue delay.
2. Be aware this is not an emergency situation, but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.
3. On initial contact the term “minimum fuel” should be used after stating call sign.
4. Be aware a minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority.
5. If the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, you should declare an emergency due to low fuel and report fuel remaining in minutes.

b. Controller.

1. When an aircraft declares a state of minimum fuel, relay this information to the facility to whom control jurisdiction is transferred.
2. Be alert for any occurrence which might delay the aircraft.

ATC Watcher
10th Oct 2017, 20:36
That is one of the problem : many States have different phraseogies and rules regarding this. . However both your examples indicate that using the term " Fuel minimum " will not give you any priority or assistance from ATC . In fact in some States you will get no reaction .
ICAO PANS OPS states it quite clearly . So, if you expect priortity from ATC , use MAYDAY .
( for those who want to know more may I suggest you visit the (excellent) Skybrary.aero site and type "Fuel emergencies , advice to controllers " in the search box )

AerocatS2A
11th Oct 2017, 12:34
I thought we'd all got on board with ICAO on this one.

"Minimum fuel" = If I have further delays I may land with less than final reserves. Situational awareness phrase only. No priority can be expected.
"Mayday fuel" = I have calculated that I will land with less than final reserves. Priority will be given as per any emergency.

FlightDetent
11th Oct 2017, 15:45
"minimum fuel" is an official EASA term and should be understood by all ATC in the EU.

Means any deviation from present clearance will result in below final reserve fuel on arrival at alternate.

persay it should only be used after a divert has been started as your committed to the alternate airport. .

To reiterate, no "minimum fuel" calls whilst holding for the intended destination, with alternate fuel still on board. Correct?

Only once commited to the last landing airport possible (be that the original DEST, planned ALTN or simply any other diversion field), "minimum fuel" will be used when possible further delays would result in arrival below FRSF.

Monarch Man
13th Oct 2017, 16:26
Just in case there is any doubt, speaking as someone who has the delightful chore of operating into and out of these poor excuses for airports, you tell them what your doing and where you are going...do not bother discussing or explaining and realise you are dealing with for the most part idiots who think that speaking faster and shouting over the radio makes them more intelligent.
Indian ATC, it's an oxymoron :ugh:

WHBM
13th Oct 2017, 17:41
It's not unknown that once a major airport is closed by a sudden incident, both routings to and capacity at the diversion point can rapidly diminish and cause difficulty to anyone who held for a good while.

Delta had a comparable incident (without the repeated need to emphasise their situation) back in the 1990s, with I believe an MD-11, where London Gatwick was obstructed, it held for quite a time until they had to divert to Manchester, for which they then got a non-optimum flight level and extended track, and then congestion approaching Manchester. They were actually offered Liverpool as a straight-in option. I think there was an AAIB report.

tescoapp
14th Oct 2017, 16:19
To reiterate, no "minimum fuel" calls whilst holding for the intended destination, with alternate fuel still on board. Correct?

Its when any deviation to your current clearance means you will be into final reserve.

Technically you could be saying it in the hold at destination if you have no alternate.

condorbaaz
15th Oct 2017, 09:55
Tail wind at both ends, was there ?

Min for 14 ILS is 1200 and for 32 only VORDME . Min 2400m.

Just for info.

notapilot15
15th Oct 2017, 21:55
Pundits to be split on this one. All leads have gone cold. Any idea what really happened?