EK15 Diverting to MAN from LGW

[Hansol]

i saw the EK15 declared an inflight emergency because of storm Erik and is diverting to MAN? But wind speeds at the time were only 20knts gusting to 30 knots. Anything else going on?

[Skyjob]

Direction of wind, maybe?
An inflight or dispatch able fault also could reduce crosswind allowance

[Evey_Hammond]

2 failed attempts at landing at LGW, fuel low, diverted to MAN.

[Dave Gittins]

Currently 210 at 18 G 29 on Rwy 26.. crosswind max 23 kts component. What's limits for a 380 ? .. is it runway width limited ?

[surely not]

They tootled around the Sussex coastline for quite awhile before heading up North. I can't find any info as to whether they will refuel and try again or if the flight is terminating at MAN. If it does terminate in MAN the coach companies will be pleased!

[RexBanner]

We picked up a predictive wind shear ahead whilst pointing West on the taxiway parallel to 26L bizarrely enough, at the same time the Emirates aircraft on approach called going around due wind shear, so obviously that was the first event. Not sure about the second go around as we were airborne by then but we heard them on the London Frequencies declaring a mayday and initially requesting Stansted before deciding Manchester. Not for the first time this has happened with this kind of wind in Gatwick for the A380.

[Chesty Morgan]

Laker's revenge. Is it still there?

[tubby linton]

Laker's revenge. Is it still there?
The building has gone, though the turbulence hasn”t

[cessnapete]

The building has gone, though the turbulence hasn”t



EK apparently have an SOP mandatory go around if the flight deck w=Wind s=Shear warning occurs. Even if X wind below limits, they fly by numbers, no Airmanship allowed.
Same SOP process, the initial cause of the DXB 777 accident ( Then pilot error). Mandatory go around if Long Landing warning, even if you've still got 10000ft of runway ahead.

[Right Way Up]

EK apparently have an SOP mandatory go around if the flight deck w=Wind s=Shear warning occurs.

I may be misunderstanding you, but what is wrong with that?

[Sussex79]

Hi - I was a passenger on this flight. The pilot seemed concerned from the outset. When we boarded in Dubai he mentioned the predicted wind and rain at Gatwick and said “we hope to get you there safely”.

With the cameras we were able to watch both landings and we seeemed a long way from runway on both attempts. Would crew confidence and an obvious landing worry before we even left Dubai come into it?

What was then strange was it was announced we were diverting to Manchester yet spent another 15 mins circling around Brighton. . .

[dixi188]

GE still shows the Laker hangar. It's the BCAL ones that are gone, unless that is out of date.

[172_driver]

I may be misunderstanding you, but what is wrong with that?

Without putting any judgement on the crew in question;

It's a one size fits all approach to the problem. With the kind of weather around there is a good chance you'll be in the same position 20 min later with just less fuel onboard. Unlikely mechanical turbulence is gonna have you fall out of the sky, unlike thunderstorm induced wind shear.

[Chesty Morgan]

Thanks Tubby.

You can ignore a wind sheer caution but you cannot ignore a wind sheer warning. So which was it?

[Right Way Up]

It's a one size fits all approach to the problem.

No it's not. If you get a wind shear warning you do a windshear go-around. It's not rocket science. If you are light on fuel you divert somewhere where wind shear won't be an issue. If of course your management skills are up to decent fuel planning.

[Time Traveller]

So what you're gonna do? Keep going around until you run out of fuel?

But sadly, yes - airmanship is about as welcome as a French kiss at a family reunion these days, if it doesn't completely fit in with "procedure". :rolleyes:

[Right Way Up]

Time traveller are you saying ignore a wind shear warning?

[Locked door]

Thats a very simplistic / basic / fly by numbers approach to windshear warnings. As a previous poster points out, what’s the point of exchanging one windy runway for another with less fuel. On a day like today every runway in the UK is going to be affected by lumpy wind, some will have a larger xwind component than others but that doesn’t mean they’re more or less likely to have a windshear event.

In my airline as long as multiple criteria are met and the decision to continue is pre briefed it is permissible to treat a windshear warning as a caution and continue the approach. Of course just because you can doesn’t mean you must, so I temper the briefing to say we’ll be continue minded above 500ft and w/s ga minded below 500ft and there’s no need to try to be heroes.

[Time Traveller]

Time traveller are you saying ignore a wind shear warning?
Yes ... after declaring a pan or mayday ... which is what they did - so good job. But it scares me that some crews would actually keep going around again and again because the book says so. This is supposed to be why we don't have computers flying airliners

[Right Way Up]

Thats a very simplistic / basic / fly by numbers approach to windshear warnings. As a previous poster points out, what’s the point of exchanging one windy runway for another with less fuel

Then take enough fuel to have a go and divert to somewhere where wind shear is unlikely to be an issue. That is why you are paid the big bucks! On a normal day too many people take extra fuel for no reason except to make themselves more comfortable (a ton for mum etc) then when they really need loads of extra fuel they add their standard extra fuel!

Time Traveller - I see where you are coming from and yes at some point you may have to make that decision. Hopefully good airmanship will avoid that.

[nike]

Time traveller...you said....

".....But it scares me that some crews would actually keep going around again and again because the book says so...."


Please provide an example of this having happened.

[Time Traveller]

I once put this scenario to a trainee - "always go around", no caveats, was the response.

[Chesty Morgan]

Did you ask him how he was going around with no fuel?

[Jet Jockey A4]

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-47177383/plane-struggles-to-land-in-strong-winds-at-heathrow-airport

In any case I think they did the right thing.

[beamer]

It is quite possible to get a windshear warning, perhaps just a momentary one, at a point during the approach when a decision to continue is an option, say 1500-1000 ft above touchdown. In my experience, and I am a couple of years into retirement now, most operators have an SOP regime where a go-round is mandatory and in-flight monitoring systems are such that a zero tolerance policy is likely to be strictly observed. I suppose one could take the argument to the extreme of an island-holding destination where an aircraft would have no option other than to land despite continued windshear warnings !

[Dan_Brown]

What is it with the pilots or the tools they are given, today?

Back in the late '90's I watched (in awe) B707's land at Ostend. The wind was 29kts gusting 35kts, straight across. Yes the wind was straight off the sea, so not quite the turbulence as today. Old school people who had the skills to do the job.

I am aware we are talking AB here. If it wasn't Boeing I wouldn't go

[gatbusdriver]

In my 20 years, in several airlines, a windshear warning (not caution) has been a compulsory go around, unless of course, there is an emergency. I am making an assumption here that they (EK), after 2 go-arounds no longer thought they might land with less than final reserve, they knew, as such a Mayday was called. Am I missing something here?

Did they make it to MAN? Did they take out a few tower blocks near BHX?

[Right Way Up]

Sorry Dan but nothing has changed. Same weather patterns and same spread of pilot abilities.

And please don’t do Airbus v Boeing.......it really is a boring argument now.

[Del Prado]

Hi - I was a passenger on this flight. The pilot seemed concerned from the outset. When we boarded in Dubai he mentioned the predicted wind and rain at Gatwick and said “we hope to get you there safely”.

With the cameras we were able to watch both landings and we seeemed a long way from runway on both attempts. Would crew confidence and an obvious landing worry before we even left Dubai come into it?


No. I was a passenger on a flight yesterday and the Captain briefed us that bad weather/strong winds were forecast. I found it reassuring that the conditions at destination had obviously been well briefed and fuelled for.

As for the on board cameras, wouldn’t they make the aircraft look misaligned because of the crabbing effect in the wind?

Its very easy to draw conclusions as a passenger.

Hope that helps.

[slowjet]

Used to work for an Operator who's SOP was to divert after two GA . No questions, no discussion, no AB v B . Dead easy really. One guy did get on on a third attempt and the tea & bickies at HQ went on for so long they sent for more bickies. EK, good job.

[Capt Fathom]

At the end of the day it’s not a contest! You just want to arrive somewhere.... safely!

[ShyTorque]

Time traveller...you said....

".....But it scares me that some crews would actually keep going around again and again because the book says so...."


Please provide an example of this having happened.



I listened to the Hong Kong Approach frequency during a typhoon. One airliner, from the middle east, had gone around three times from runway 13 at Kai Tak. The eye of the typhoon passed right through Kowloon harbour and a runway change was carried out. The wind was gusting to 90 kts! By then it was possible to discern the increasing tension in the tone of the pilot's radio transmissions. He requested fuel priority and because the ILS for the reciprocal, runway 31 was taking a little time to come online, ATC offered him a PAR approach to runway 31.

The pilot was obviously confused by this and after a pause (presumably to confer with the captain) he declared that they didn't have any PAR equipment* fitted! Only at that stage did they decide to divert!

* For those who don't know, a PAR is a Precision Approach Radar letdown. No equipment is required to be fitted to any aircraft because the pilot just listens to continuous ATC glidepath and centreline information given during the descent and makes the appropriate left/right and descent corrections suggested.

I made a mental note not to fly with that airline...

[Contact Approach]

Used to work for an Operator who's SOP was to divert after two GA . No questions, no discussion, no AB v B . Dead easy really. One guy did get on on a third attempt and the tea & bickies at HQ went on for so long they sent for more bickies. EK, good job.

I'm surprised bickies were on offer!

[ManaAdaSystem]

I listened to the Hong Kong Approach frequency during a typhoon. One airliner, from the middle east, had gone around three times from runway 13 at Kai Tak. The eye of the typhoon passed right through Kowloon harbour and a runway change was carried out. The wind was gusting to 90 kts! By then it was possible to discern the increasing tension in the tone of the pilot's radio transmissions. He requested fuel priority and because the ILS for the reciprocal, runway 31 was taking a little time to come online, ATC offered him a PAR approach to runway 31.

The pilot was obviously confused by this and after a pause (presumably to confer with the captain) he declared that they didn't have any PAR equipment* fitted! Only at that stage did they decide to divert!

* For those who don't know, a PAR is a Precision Approach Radar letdown. No equipment is required to be fitted to any aircraft because the pilot just listens to continuous ATC glidepath and centreline information given during the descent and makes the appropriate left/right and descent corrections suggested.

I made a mental note not to fly with that airline...

If I say PAR approach to our new pilots, I get blank stares in return. Last time I did one was in 1990.
The last SRE approach I did was 1991 (I think) into LHR RWY 23.
I don’t think these approches are covered in our manuals anymore. Never been offered a PAR approach into a civilian airport.
EK carry large amounts of economy fuel from DXB. Remember the A380 that did 3 approcahes to MAN before diverting to LHR? How much fuel did he carry for that exercise?

[Sailvi767]

Most airlines require a go around if you get a windshear warning. The part hard to understand is running yourself into a low fuel situation. Perhaps they should have diverted after the first attempt.

[beamer]

I think my last PAR was at Roveneimi about twenty years ago and I think I was once asked to do an SRA at BHX for controller currency but thats about it since I left the military. Mind you, I did come back across the pond in a 767 into Bournemouth on a fairly miserable morning to find that both their radar and ILS were out so had to do a procedural NDB - we got in !

[172_driver]

Used to work for an Operator who's SOP was to divert after two GA . No questions, no discussion, no AB v B . Dead easy really. One guy did get on on a third attempt and the tea & bickies at HQ went on for so long they sent for more bickies. EK, good job.

Even if the fog had cleared and the sun was out?

Don't know about you, but I take some pleasure in this job by using my knowledge, experience, skills to get passengers and freight to its destination.

[Global Aviator]

Like the BA 787 bounce post.

Move along job well done.

2 attempts divert!

[Frequent_Flyer]

Any thoughts on this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVx2xyjvX1c

[Odins Raven]

MAN forecast for the 8th (yesterday) was a 10 knot gust straight down the runway.

Pretty sure LGW was forecast to be something like 210 degrees 29G42 wasn’t it??? That’s almost all crosswind component.

Therefore 2 wind shear go-arounds with the option of a diversion to a less windy ‘into-wind’ runway doesn’t sound all that stupid. Don’t know many skippers who’d act any differently. If the alternate was just as bad, then fair enough make a judgement call - but it clearly wasn’t the case!

[Frequent_Flyer]

The aircraft did a go-around. Crew and other players did their job. Can't think of anything else.

...I mean why it took them so long to get off the ground and initiate the go-around? (Please note I am asking as cabin crew)

[donpizmeov]

I believe Airbus removed the baulked landing procedure about 6yrs ago (or was it more?) . Missed approach procedure covers all, with notes that PF should be careful with rotation rate when close to the ground . And that PM monitor, and only move flap when speed, attitude, thrust and flight path are checked, and its safe to do so . This works well .
Toga 10 would appear to be an orange company procedure to be used instead of the above .

[mr Q]

I listened to the Hong Kong Approach frequency during a typhoon. One airliner, from the middle east, had gone around three times from runway 13 at Kai Tak. The eye of the typhoon passed right through Kowloon harbour and a runway change was carried out. The wind was gusting to 90 kts! By then it was possible to discern the increasing tension in the tone of the pilot's radio transmissions. He requested fuel priority and because the ILS for the reciprocal, runway 31 was taking a little time to come online, ATC offered him a PAR approach to runway 31.

The pilot was obviously confused by this and after a pause (presumably to confer with the captain) he declared that they didn't have any PAR equipment* fitted! Only at that stage did they decide to divert!

* For those who don't know, a PAR is a Precision Approach Radar letdown. No equipment is required to be fitted to any aircraft because the pilot just listens to continuous ATC glidepath and centreline information given during the descent and makes the appropriate left/right and descent corrections suggested.

I made a mental note not to fly with that airline...
Could not have been many Middle East airlines into Kai Tak in those days but fond memories of the 31 PAR
But ATC had a funny caveat saying “ for information only”or something similar which was a government phrase do avoid liability in the event of an accident
Many a crew thanked the controller fulsomely for the assistance upon landing such was its value and guidance thro the Lei Yi Mun Gap

[Frequent_Flyer]

Thank you wtsmg !

[g109]

For info, the crew on that flight is removed from roster.

[Good Business Sense]

I believe Airbus removed the baulked landing procedure about 6yrs ago (or was it more?) . Missed approach procedure covers all, with notes that PF should be careful with rotation rate when close to the ground . And that PM monitor, and only move flap when speed, attitude, thrust and flight path are checked, and its safe to do so . This works well .
Toga 10 would appear to be an orange company procedure to be used instead of the above .

It's a good thing to practice - especially so that you learn to expect and ignore the very distracting take-off warning (flaps) - used to train it on the aircraft (L1011) in amongst the touch and goes - really gives the pilot a lot of confidence i.e. one more unknown out of the way when dealing with challenging situations.

[Good Business Sense]

Hi - I was a passenger on this flight. The pilot seemed concerned from the outset. When we boarded in Dubai he mentioned the predicted wind and rain at Gatwick and said “we hope to get you there safely”.

With the cameras we were able to watch both landings and we seeemed a long way from runway on both attempts. Would crew confidence and an obvious landing worry before we even left Dubai come into it?

What was then strange was it was announced we were diverting to Manchester yet spent another 15 mins circling around Brighton. . .




Prior to departure in my old long haul outfit I tended to advise of a "light breeze" at destination - at top of drop I'd say, "the breeze had freshened up a bit" and 10-15 miles out, before the big bumps started, I'd say, "expecting a few bumps on final approach" - no sense in having the pax worry for 10-16 hours so just enough info before the bumps start so that they didn't think you'd been surprised by it.

[slowjet]

172 Driver : Your post 39 ; Your commercial pride might just get in the way of professional obligation. So, with the fog clear & the sun out, in you go for your third but ATC orders a GA for whatever. Are you going in for a fourth ? Fog cleared, sun out & boy oh boy, you just take pride in getting your pax & freight in. Oh dear.

[Yaw String]

For all of you,sitting in front of a warm fire,cup of cocoa in hand,in ur slippers,spouting about the horror of anyone ignoring a windshear warning...One day,conditions may dictate,It could be a viable option for you too.
Generally,the killer shears are from microbursts related to large thunderstorms,or in mountainous terrain.
Heavens,.if my Piper Cub,back in the 80's at the LGC,had been fitted with windshear prediction equipment,east run days would have been drunken days at the bar,instead of white knuckle days!..Crikey,maybe you have a point!
Now i'll retreat to my WW1 trench and await incoming!!!

[tommy sussex]

Yaw String Old Boy, good post, sensible policies for a better Britain! I bet those tugs were fully equipped with SDWS (swamp donkey warning systems) to keep you clear of dangers closer to ground whilst the danger passed.

[172_driver]

172 Driver : Your post 39 ; Your commercial pride might just get in the way of professional obligation. So, with the fog clear & the sun out, in you go for your third but ATC orders a GA for whatever. Are you going in for a fourth ? Fog cleared, sun out & boy oh boy, you just take pride in getting your pax & freight in. Oh dear.

I was questioning a "no third attempt, period, SOP". If the book says so, I guess I have to comply. I am a bit surprised to see someone defend it though (actually...not really surprised). Once in-flight you do what seems sensible with the fuel you've got onboard and if that means a third attempt now when there is a very probable chance of success, why not? Explain it well to your passengers. And why come up with the extremes, like ATC ordering a go around? That's beyond your control and a fourth attempt may very well be justifiable. Again, explain it well to your crowd - for the anxious ones.

[FlightDetent]

Same here, in agreement. 2 approaches only - unless significant improvement in conditions that fouled those attempts.

[donpizmeov]

In the good old days we called it CDF .