Vistara UK944 lands with 200kg fuel

[BleedingOn]

Looks like a fun day out...

15th July A320 Mumbai-Delhi, diverts to Lucknow, further diverts to Prayagraj but ends up landing in Lucknow on vapours. All seemingly created by unforecast low vis.

From flightradar, 38 mins between entering hold pattern at DEL to missed approach and diversion. Further 10 mins holding at Lucknow before heading off to the east, then landed approx 40 mins after entering hold at Lucknow.

Nothing on AVherald

https://apple.news/AYyq6kLJqSc-snDazWL_G8w

[pineteam]

200kg of fuel remaining!:}

https://ibb.co/ZGqYSLC


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/710x1009/805327_c5_e2_c6_470_c_9140_bebefc75_ec13_aed51f28eceb2b441e5 e54675e964174eb888108.jpg

[gearlever]

200kg of fuel remaining!:}

START APU:O

[gearlever]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1892x914/227265_5d2ee548463d4uk944_c53e307cc68bcd7f9e70dcf5ffd1544f18 74ba08.jpg


There are rumours TOF was 8.500 kg.
Two G/A and diversion, total flight time 3h29min.
What do the 320 jocks say about possible fuel remaining?

[Auxtank]

Insufficient fuel as a result of insufficient use of the word "Unable" to ATC.

[Austrian Simon]

Nothing on AVherald




While we can confirm the diversions and 3:29 hours total flight time, we have no evidence of a landing with less than minimum fuel. The claim by Indian media might also be read (as this fine difference likely isn't known to them) as minimum fuel + 200kg.

At this time we know this:

The crew diverted to Lucknow and performed an approach without requesting priority or declaring emergency. The crew went around, still no Mayday. The crew diverted again, and now the Mayday call comes - hence it is obvious landing at Allahabad was no longer ensured with the minimum fuel still onboard. The aircraft turned back to Lucknow and landed, probably with more fuel on board than would have remained after landing at Allahabad.

At this time it is unclear what amount of fuel really was on board after landing. We are waiting for official comment by the DGCA (if they report a serious incident indeed, then this was a landing with less than the minimum fuel and we are going to report. If it wasn't a serious incident, then they landed with minimum fuel still on board and we are not going to report this at all).

Servus, Simon

[misd-agin]

Simon - post #2 by pineteam has a link to a photo of 200 kgs of fuel remaining. What's unknown is if that's actually from the incident aircraft.

[BlankBox]

...this is pprune...Simon deals in factual...:E

[Speed of Sound]

Simon - post #2 by pineteam has a link to a photo of 200 kgs of fuel remaining. What's unknown is if that's actually from the incident aircraft.

Very unlikely.

Why would someone take a random photo of an MFD on landing, other than to demonstrate what fuel was left in which case it would be framed around the FOB part of the display and not hopelessly out of focus,

[futurama]

Pilot grounded by the DGCA:


DGCA grounds Vistara pilot who issued Mayday call

Aviation regulator DGCA on Tuesday grounded a pilot who issued a 'Mayday' distress call due to low-fuel near Lucknow airport on Monday while operating a Mumbai-Delhi flight.

A senior Vistara official confirmed that the pilot has been "de-rostered" as per the instructions of the regulator.

"The pilot who was operating UK944 flight and issued a 'Mayday' call on Monday has been grounded by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)," a source said.

The source added that the regulator is trying to ascertain the facts regarding this matter and it would soon hold a meeting with the pilots - who were flying the UK944 flight - and the executives of the company.

"The pilot made a 'Fuel Mayday' call, which is issued when aircraft starts tapping into its emergency fuel reserves," another source said. ...


https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/dgca-grounds-vistara-pilot-who-issued-mayday-call-1570163-2019-07-16

[krismiler]

200 kg is lower end taxi burn. The tanks would need to be dipped to get an accurate figure for this quantity.

[Dynamite1]

200 kg is lower end taxi burn. The tanks would need to be dipped to get an accurate figure for this quantity.
Dunno why thE company in question never had a closer alternate like VIJP in their SOP. Heard they are incorporating it now.
VIJP is CAT IIIB able field.

[DaveReidUK]

Very unlikely.
Why would someone take a random photo of an MFD on landing, other than to demonstrate what fuel was left in which case it would be framed around the FOB part of the display and not hopelessly out of focus,
I'm confused - are you saying that the fact it's blurred suggests that it is, or isn't, the incident aircraft ?

One would hope that not too many other opportunities arise to record a reading like that.

Of course the lack of focus would make it easier to Photoshop. :O

[Speed of Sound]

I'm confused - are you saying that the fact it's blurred suggests that it is, or isn't, the incident aircraft ?



My initial impression was that as you say, a blurred photo would be easier to Photoshop and present as fake news but on further reflection, if there was a dispute between crew members as to how the situation arose, the picture may well be a sneaky mobile phone shot taken by a nervous first officer as evidence, which would explain the poor framing and focus as well as the fact that the ‘camera’ was moving when the picture was taken.

[masalama]

Pilot grounded by the DGCA:



https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/dgca-grounds-vistara-pilot-who-issued-mayday-call-1570163-2019-07-16
Oh thank heavens he/she’s grounded , now we’re all safe well done 👍

[misd-agin]

Lack of focus proves nothing.

[speedbird787]

They are no more grounded..... They just had a bad day.. We all do

[speedbird787]

Here is the oder from dgca

[Anvaldra]

Looks like a circus
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/540x1170/f890b567_0b01_4f93_b699_f3bcbc6bc0ec_cd1d85b6a6e19efd1729c31 ad0ea498012b4df2c.jpeg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/540x1170/d3130ced_b598_4e0f_bd37_adc706639c21_845c3d83539a7d75600e7e4 5b0118718ac4c0b54.jpeg

[sonicbum]

"The pilots are cleared to resume their normal flying duties". Wtf ?

[MemberBerry]

Not a pilot, what should they have done differently?

[MPN11]

I also await the responses ... to me (not a pilot but ex-ATCO) they were clearly juggling options in less than ideal weather conditions.

[gearlever]

During monsoon in India I would opt for some extra fuel.

[Total Pressure]

The report implies at fuel of 1260kg they accepted an instruction to climb to FL100 for another diversion. That scares me.

As good as forecasts can be, weather is unpredictable and can catch the best people out with little notice. They obviously started with a fair chunk of extra fuel.

There comes a point when you have to land and to me the safest action at the 1260kg fuel point would be to fly another approach immediately, declare a mayday as you know you'll be below final reserve, and quickly brief how you plan to fly an approach and it's doubtful you'll be visual at CAT1 minima (not sure of approaches available) but you will continue to land.

That said I'm using hindsight, and unfamiliar with the airfields.

[Hotel Mode]

If they went around from Delhi because of the tailwind on 29 why not land on 11? its also CAT3b. They had 90 mins of fuel at that point to wait out ATC changing runway. I have been to DEL so I know its easier said than done, but if its out of limits for 1 A320 then it is for at least some of the others too.

Lucknow 27 is also CAT3B so why would an RVR of 275m be an issue there? As Total Pressure says, even if the crew aren't CAT 3 trained or the aircraft isn't fully capable, surely, at some point the greatest threat to the aircraft is running out of fuel?

Is there something we don't know about the aircraft technical state either at dispatch or on approach?

[misd-agin]

Letter states 260 kg of fuel when they landed.

[iggy]

Did they do a go around with less than 1.500 kgs in the tanks?

[RickNRoll]

They beat the Virgin Australia record at Mildura.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/virgin-plane-had-just-535kg-of-fuel-when-it-made-emergency-landing-at-mildura-airport/news-story/92d7e61436ea1ccc38be75067d4f11aa

[Total Pressure]

Did they do a go around with less than 1.500 kgs in the tanks?

looks like 1260kg when they discontinued and started a 90 odd mile divert. Then when 37 miles into the divert the weather improves and they went back, fuel 500kg as they turned around with 37 miles to run.

There has to be more to the story.

[Hotel Mode]

3400Kg overhead a 3 runway airport with CAT3B would seem to me to be the point to go back to.

If it was tailwind and not RVR, did they ask for the reciprocal? If they did, why was it refused?

Did others divert?

[krismiler]

Now on avherald.

Incident: Vistara A20N at Lucknow on Jul 15th 2019, landed with just 260kg of fuel remaining (http://avherald.com/h?article=4ca8397f&opt=0)

[Check Airman]

Assuming the runways had ILS, it seems like the PIC should have exercised emergency authority a lot earlier. I hope this isn't one of those cases where the reasoning was that "the book says we can't..."

[Pander216]

"The pilots are cleared to resume their normal flying duties". Wtf ?

The wording makes it seem like a punitive culture, however when an investigation is started following a serious incident, it is normal practice to relief all relevant crew from their duties pending interviews. This is done purely to not diffuse ones memory of the respective flight.

Regarding the safest action; when no other options are available any more, busting abstract limitations like tailwind on a long runway or RVR on a runway which is autoland capable, is more safe than ending up without fuel. The first page in our OM-A even describes that in the interest of safety the commander is allowed to deviate from rules and regulations.

[smiling monkey]

I'm confused - are you saying that the fact it's blurred suggests that it is, or isn't, the incident aircraft ?

One would hope that not too many other opportunities arise to record a reading like that.

Of course the lack of focus would make it easier to Photoshop. :O

I think the photo was blurred because the pilot's hand was still trembling after they landed.

[smiling monkey]

Lucky they had Lucknow on their side. A few minutes later, they would have ran out of Luck.

[gearlever]

Thx God they didn't try to reach Allahabad...(about 100 NM from Lucknow).

[WingNut60]

An oldie but a goodie

MMA - to the last drop

[giggitygiggity]

Was there an ILS in Lucknow? Seems like it given the RVRs listed on AVherald. They were overhead with minimum fuel (1100kg), that was the point they should have done an autoland regardless, and if they get visual, take the autopilot out for a manual landing. If the RVR is 1m, the autoland system doesn't care. I appreciate that terrain (rather than ILS quality/lighting) might prohibit the autolanding on a technical basis, but a dodgy autoland is probably a lot more comfortable than actually running out of fuel whilst still in the air.

Also, someone correct me, but is a modern A320 with FLS capable of landing automatically from an NPA with a MAP over the threshold? This aircraft was an A320 neo so quite possibly technically equipped for that as an even laster last resort?

Scary stuff all the same, those lucky people!!

[gearlever]

Also, someone correct me, but is a modern A320 with FLS capable of landing automatically from an NPA with a MAP over the threshold? This aircraft was an A320 neo so quite possibly technically equipped for that as an even laster last resort?

Scary stuff all the same, those lucky people!!

Don't konow the neo, but autoland on A320 ILS only.

[pineteam]

NEO is the same. Autoland is possible only with ILS.

[sonicbum]

The wording makes it seem like a punitive culture, however when an investigation is started following a serious incident, it is normal practice to relief all relevant crew from their duties pending interviews. This is done purely to not diffuse ones memory of the respective flight.


It is actually the opposite. They were cleared back to their flying duties 3 days after the incident, does not seem much of a punitive culture.


Regarding the safest action; when no other options are available any more, busting abstract limitations like tailwind on a long runway or RVR on a runway which is autoland capable, is more safe than ending up without fuel. The first page in our OM-A even describes that in the interest of safety the commander is allowed to deviate from rules and regulations.



Correct, it is written in the OM-A of every single operator as this statement comes from ICAO ANNEX 2.

[mickjoebill]

What does 200kg of fuel translate to in flight time?

mjb

[FlightDetent]

About 4 minutes of approach time, about 1 minute 15 sec of G/A thrust. Minimum fuel for take-off A320 1500 kg. A simple and short circuit 600 kg.

If 200 after engine shutdown, most likely about 320 - 370 on landing. that's 70% more! Stranger than fiction anyway.

[Check Airman]

About 4 minutes of approach time, about 1 minute 15 sec of G/A thrust. Minimum fuel for take-off A320 1500 kg. A simple and short circuit 600 kg.

If 200 after engine shutdown, most likely about 320 - 370 on landing. that's 70% more! Stranger than fiction anyway.

Avherald says they landed with 260kg. I'm sure they did a SE taxi!

[Check Airman]

Was there an ILS in Lucknow? Seems like it given the RVRs listed on AVherald. They were overhead with minimum fuel (1100kg), that was the point they should have done an autoland regardless, and if they get visual, take the autopilot out for a manual landing. If the RVR is 1m, the autoland system doesn't care. I appreciate that terrain (rather than ILS quality/lighting) might prohibit the autolanding on a technical basis, but a dodgy autoland is probably a lot more comfortable than actually running out of fuel whilst still in the air.

Also, someone correct me, but is a modern A320 with FLS capable of landing automatically from an NPA with a MAP over the threshold? This aircraft was an A320 neo so quite possibly technically equipped for that as an even laster last resort?

Scary stuff all the same, those lucky people!!

An a recent sim session, we tried a manual 0/0 landing from a NPA. Not necessarily applicable to a real life scenario, but when out of options, the guidance is very accurate. Just saying.

[FlightDetent]

Done in real life, survivable. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150304-0, The spin that the excursion was due to incorrect coordinates of RWY THR in FMS is priceless. Guess otherwise we might not have known at all.

[misd-agin]

What does 200kg of fuel translate to in flight time?

mjb

Roughly five minutes at approach or cruise power. As FlightDetent mentioned it would be much less at high power, like during a go-around. If they'd attempted a go-around they probably would have run out of gas before they were able to retract the flaps and obtain a 'clean' configuration.
WIth fuel this low I have to wonder how they managed the drag (fuel flow) on the approach(s)? Normal configuration or delay gear extension? Land with Flaps 1 or 2 instead of F3 of FULL?

[vilas]

Grounding or more correctly derostering after an incident is a normal procedure to rule out it was not due to skill Defficiency because the incident may get repeated. In this incident the sudden deterioration of visibility in destination and alternate has provided prima facie some evidence that it wasn't so. It's a good move by the regulator not to penalize the crew till the finding is completed.

[gearlever]

Well, it depends.... (https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/20-pilots-suspended-in-july-over-aircraft-accidents-norms-violation-dgca/story-5xsZjURS2WNICu3OZw76hM.html)

[EDLB]

Well, it depends.... (https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/20-pilots-suspended-in-july-over-aircraft-accidents-norms-violation-dgca/story-5xsZjURS2WNICu3OZw76hM.html)
Hard to believe that a punishment culture will improve flight safety. In the Western Hemisphere it works the opposite way.

[gearlever]

Hard to believe that a punishment culture will improve flight safety. In the Western Hemisphere it works the opposite way.

In India it will not work either.

[giggitygiggity]

NEO is the same. Autoland is possible only with ILS.

I'm convinced I've seen a video (Australian crew maybe?) flying an Autoland off a GPS approach in an A320 in some sort of demonstration. I think it was posted on here. Ignoring actual programming, there is no technical reason though that one couldn't be accomplished as the automatic flare and kick straight (ignoring rollout later) is purely a numbers thing based on ILS CRS and rad alt, as far as I know.

[pineteam]

Hello Giggitygiggity,

Ah ok! Interesting! I guess it’s optionnal as we don’t have this function on our NEOs. Quite new on this type. Will have a look! Thanks.

[Pander216]

It is actually the opposite. They were cleared back to their flying duties 3 days after the incident, does not seem much of a punitive culture.

?

Isn’t that exactly what I am trying to explain with my reply to your earlier post?

[Old King Coal]

Under normal circumstances Autoland's require 3x A's, namely:

Aircraft is capable and airworthy to do it and the weather's is in-limits for the aircraft type.
Airport is capable of providing a CAT II / IIIa/b approach (with all that that entails).
Aircrew is capable, i.e. trained and in-check to do it.
Anyone of those not in place and the autoland game is up.

BUT... when the fuel's running out (i.e. it's not normal circumstances), the Commander is granted authority to throw the rule book out of the proverbial window and do whatever needs to be done.

Looking at the METAR's (for Luknow & Delhi... which all reported Cb's / TSRA and knowing the general pandemonium that can cause for the airports in that vicinity, i.e. everybody charging about trying to find somewhere to land) there's also maybe a question to be asked about their initial fuel planning and judgement thereof (i.e. from initially taking barely enough for Dehli, wherein they should be well aware that when Delhi's got Wx issues - and your primary alternate too - you need to be generous with tankering), i.e. they seemingly had loaded only 20-30 minutes of extra fuel (which they used when holding for Delhi, which somewhat proves my previous point about generous tankering required for Delhi when the Wx there is ****) before proceeding to their primary alternate, arriving there with only a smidgen more than 'Final Reserve' (then, having thrown away their 1st approach into Lucknow, declaring a Mayday because of their now parlous fuel state) and then trying to divert to some place else... well, you couldn't make it up.

And I highly suspect that, during their no doubt panicked attempt to divert to some place else (with barely ½ ton of fuel remaining in each wing) ATC then helped them out by providing a sudden 'improvement' in the Wx in Lucknow.

Imho, they should have declared their Mayday much sooner (which immediately has the effect of throwing the rule book out the window) and landed in Lucknow on the first attempt (or broke off, circled around pronto, and done it again); with Final Reserve fuel remaining (or bloody close to it) even if the tailwind was a tadge too much and / or the visibility was a tadge below system limits? well "oh dear, how sad, never mind". It's called airmanship. This debacle smacks of a complete lack of judgement, as well as blind obeisance to the rules at the expense of common sense, i.e. it's symptomatic of the sort of folks who would follow the rule book into a mountainside.

[sonicbum]

?

Isn’t that exactly what I am trying to explain with my reply to your earlier post?





Yep, sorry, my bad, I misread Your post !

[sonicbum]

A few facts gathered through FR24 just to better understand what happened while waiting for an official report, so we can possibly discuss and keep learning.

UK944 holds for approximately 15 minutes before starting the approach for RWY 29. The approach starts at 11:30 Z.

METAR VIDP 151130Z 07009KT 2800 BR SCT030 FEW040CB OVC080 24/24 Q0999 TEMPO 28020G30KT 1500 TSRA=

The aircraft goes around at 11:50Z at approx 1500 ft, so approx 700 ft AAL or so, most likely due to tailwind. We don't know if the decision was taken according to a TWR wind check or the wind they read on the ND.

The crew starts immediately a diversion to VILK, at 11:55Z.

METAR VILK 151130Z 05004KT 4000 HZ SCT020 FEW030CB BKN100 34/26 Q0996 NOSIG=

Pretty decent weather. The routing is quite a bit of "zig zag", most likely because weather enroute, which may result in burning more than the planned alternate fuel. The crew reaches VILK and starts holding overhead at 12:45Z.

METAR VILK 151230Z 05004KT 3500 HZ SCT020 FEW030CB BKN100 33/26 Q0997 TEMPO 1500 RA TSRA=

It is likely they caught the heavy rain of the upcoming TS.
They immediately start a further diversion, but just 5 minutes later head back to VILK and land at 13:17 UTC.

[gearlever]

That's what the DGCA reported (from AvH)


" At Lucknow while 17nm from the runway ATC informed the crew that the runway visibility had dropped to 475 meters RVR (600 meters required) and was further reducing to 275 meters, the crew discontinued the approach and climbed to 4000 feet. When the fuel remaining reached 1260kg/2775lbs the crew declared minimum fuel and at 1100kg/2423lbs declared emergency. The crew decided to divert to Kanpur but subsequently decided to divert to Allahabad due to enroute weather. The aircraft climbed to FL100 when ATC informed the crew Lucknow was now showing 600 meters RVR and a few seconds later the RVR had increased to 1000 meters. The aircraft was 37nm from Lucknow and 58nm from Allahabad at that time, the crew decided to return to Lucknow and landed on runway 27. The aircraft landed with 260kg/572lbs of fuel remaining on board. "

1.100kg fuel at 4.000ft and divert to Allahabad....!?

[sonicbum]

That's what the DGCA reported (from AvH)


" At Lucknow while 17nm from the runway ATC informed the crew that the runway visibility had dropped to 475 meters RVR (600 meters required) and was further reducing to 275 meters, the crew discontinued the approach and climbed to 4000 feet. When the fuel remaining reached 1260kg/2775lbs the crew declared minimum fuel and at 1100kg/2423lbs declared emergency. The crew decided to divert to Kanpur but subsequently decided to divert to Allahabad due to enroute weather. The aircraft climbed to FL100 when ATC informed the crew Lucknow was now showing 600 meters RVR and a few seconds later the RVR had increased to 1000 meters. The aircraft was 37nm from Lucknow and 58nm from Allahabad at that time, the crew decided to return to Lucknow and landed on runway 27. The aircraft landed with 260kg/572lbs of fuel remaining on board. "

1.100kg fuel at 4.000ft and divert to Allahabad....!?

Technically speaking, if you start the diversion right at minimum diversion fuel, when reaching the alternate you are left with final reserve (single alternate scenario). If we add to that a possible extra fuel burn to reach the alternate due to some weather avoidance, we can easily end up with even less than reserve. This is why I have always thought that legal fuel planning must take into account some contingency even for the alternate routing, as it does for the destination trip fuel. The right amount of fuel to start the diversion is often left to crew assessment / experience and, in case some elements are not fully considered (ie. enroute weather, extra track miles, etc..) there is no safety net but infringing the reserve and therefore ending up in a mayday fuel.
If the crew started the diversion right at MDF with a pretty decent weather report for VILK, they were legally covered, only to find out that from an operational point of view they would be trapped shortly afterwards. We could also imagine a CAVOK weather at VILK and the crew having to go around because the preceding traffic went off the runway, hence ending up very close or at final reserve.
I believe we all put our personal safety nets in those kind of scenarios, to cope with a lack of regulation, like diverting at, let's say, minimum + 500 kg or so depending on the circumstances / experience, but a misjudgement in such a situation can very quickly end up in big problem.

Edit : we do not know how long it would have taken to change the runway in VIDP and re-accomodate all the traffic.

[Superpilot]

Can you imagine he landed after busting minimums. Probably instant dismissal with the half-witted Indian press lynching the crew in public.

Like has been said before, the entire system in India is broken. Idiots with violent tendencies (fighting with their colleagues) and clowns with no ability to fly (landing gear extended for 2 hours) make it to the top because of money and connections. Inevitably, this results in a system and environment where good people and their good decisions and judgement take a back seat.

[gearlever]

Can you imagine he landed after busting minimums. Probably instant dismissal with the half-witted Indian press lynching the crew in public.

Like has been said before, the entire system in India is broken. Idiots with violent tendencies (fighting with their colleagues) and clowns with no ability to fly (landing gear extended for 2 hours) make it to the top because of money and connections. Inevitably, this results in a system and environment where good people and their good decisions and judgement take a back seat.

So sad but true....

[vilas]

So sad but true....
However in this incident the weather at destination packed up direct routing to diversion wasn't possible due to weather around and alternate vis also dropped below minimum. The only decision could have been land, maybe Auto land bursting minimum or divert to another place reaching below minimum fuel. If there's an error it's in decision making not due to lack of skill. So it's OK not to ground them till the finding comes out.

[galdian]

When called back by ATC they were 37nm from Lucknow....and they landed with 200kg of fuel.
They were 58nm from Allahabad so extrapolating would have landed with....well fair to say would never have gotten to make the approach.

Immediately on making the G/A they went from MIN FUEL - which means nothing, just advice with NO NEED for ATC to assist/improve track miles - to MAYDAY FUEL so WILL be landing with less than 30 min of fuel total remaining.

The decision is made to divert using that 30 min total remaining fuel just to try and get to the "new" alternate let alone having to burn more fuel when configuring for an approach.
They would have been lucky to get near the airport before flaming out, unimaginable they would have any remaining fuel once configured.

In making their decision they decide to track away from an airport equipped with an ILS to another airport with uncertain weather (as shown already metars can change rapidly in India).

Suspects this will be an incident for discussion in CRM/Command Initiative courses for a long time to come.

[EDLB]

Suspects this will be an incident for discussion in CRM/Command Initiative courses for a long time to come.

The decision making process reminds me of a Swiss LX850 Report: Crossair SB20 at Werneuchen on Jul 10th 2002, landed before runway and impacted earth wall (http://avherald.com/h?article=434c6b66)
At a certain point you better make a bold decision instead of running out of options. In both cases the crews luck did not run out but it was close. A Gimli glider in poor weather conditions has a very predictable outcome.

[Longtimer]

Quite the headline and then comes some clarity from Avherald as usual: Incident: Vistara A20N at Lucknow on Jul 15th 2019, landed with just 260kg of fuel remaining (http://avherald.com/h?article=4ca8397f&opt=0)

[galdian]

Note the avherald report is the DGCA letter with a COMPANY note added.
The COMPANY states the drop in visibility made a "safe landing impossible".

NO!
It made a landing at or above the stated minimas unlikely (actual vis at minima Vs stated minima 5 minutes earlier) but no reason why a SAFE landing wouldn't have been achieved from a stable ILS approach.

The decision to leave Lucknow having already declared MAYDAY FUEL a separate issue for consideration.

[megan]

Sometimes the system plays a huge role, two 737's in trouble.At 1002, Velocity 1384 transmitted that they were on a 4 NM (7 km) final for the RNAV GNSS approach. At 1004, as they were not visual with the runway, the crew initiated a missed approach from 132 ft AGL. The FO reported that as they commenced the missed approach, it was possible to confirm that they were aligned with the runway by looking directly down. At 1012, ATC initiated a distress phase.The aircraft was positioned for a second approach, during which the cabin crew were briefed and prepared for an emergency landing, briefing the passengers to brace accordingly. A t 1014, Velocity 1384 landed at Mildura in foggy conditions with fuel below the required reserves.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5770548/ao-2013-100-final.pdf

[sonicbum]

Note the avherald report is the DGCA letter with a COMPANY note added.
The COMPANY states the drop in visibility made a "safe landing impossible".

NO!
It made a landing at or above the stated minimas unlikely (actual vis at minima Vs stated minima 5 minutes earlier) but no reason why a SAFE landing wouldn't have been achieved from a stable ILS approach.

The decision to leave Lucknow having already declared MAYDAY FUEL a separate issue for consideration.

An official regulator cannot state that busting the minima is equivalent to a safe landing.

[galdian]

Yes I get that.
Equally surely they cannot support the proposition that fuel exhaustion will lead to a safe/safer outcome??

As an earlier post said in regulatory talk/think they'd be happier for the aircraft to run out of fuel and crash rather than end up safely on a runway having broken minima's.
MIN FUEL call made - check. MAYDAY FUEL call made - check. Aircraft runs out of fuel, crashes and people die - well what more could the Flight Crew have done??

To finish it off - sure MAYDAY FUEL would count as one of those "Land ASAP" situations.
So: an airport you are presently holding over Vs an airport you MAY not have the fuel to get to; perhaps the regulator in their wisdom would like to publicly nominate which THEY think would be more suitable and why??
Wonder if the passengers on board would agree!

[sonicbum]

Yes I get that.
Equally surely they cannot support the proposition that fuel exhaustion will lead to a safe/safer outcome??

As an earlier post said in regulatory talk/think they'd be happier for the aircraft to run out of fuel and crash rather than end up safely on a runway having broken minima's.
MIN FUEL call made - check. MAYDAY FUEL call made - check. Aircraft runs out of fuel, crashes and people die - well what more could the Flight Crew have done??

To finish it off - sure MAYDAY FUEL would count as one of those "Land ASAP" situations.
So: an airport you are presently holding over Vs an airport you MAY not have the fuel to get to; perhaps the regulator in their wisdom would like to publicly nominate which THEY think would be more suitable and why??
Wonder if the passengers on board would agree!

As I have written on an earlier post, I personally believe there are further considerations that should be made from the regulator's point of view with respect to alternate fuel planning, as there are flaws within the system. Diverting right at the minimum diversion fuel and not being able to land immediately at the alternate results in ending up in mayday fuel, unless the crew gave themselves some extra margin by increasing the required fuel figures "just in case". There needs to be some regulatory contigency on the alternate fuel as well, as a safety net if the crew judgement does not take all the variables into account, like it could be the case in this event.

[pineteam]

I don’t know how persisting the bad weather can be in India but cancelling alternate and commit to land at destination might have been the safest choice in that case. Diverting with zero extra? Dangerous game IMHO.

[gearlever]

I don’t know how persisting the bad weather can be in India but cancelling alternate and commit to land at destination might have been the safest choice in that case. Diverting with zero extra? Dangerous game IMHO.

Agree. It's somewhat fascinating what happened after an aborted approach due to tailwind at an airport with multiple runways.
Why no second try?
Change of runway?
But, I wasn't there and are not familiar with DEL anymore.
So just asking.

[galdian]

SONICBOOM et al
You're in a position where you can either;
- hang around and shoot another approach and decide what YOU will do to get in or
- divert to somewhere else and hope you can get there on fumes
and you want to talk about how the regulator "..might have done better...".

People are going to live or die - and you want to talk about regulatory theoreticals!
Really??

[sonicbum]

SONICBOOM et al
You're in a position where you can either;
- hang around and shoot another approach and decide what YOU will do to get in or
- divert to somewhere else and hope you can get there on fumes
and you want to talk about how the regulator "..might have done better...".

People are going to live or die - and you want to talk about regulatory theoreticals!
Really??

If, and I say if there are flaws in the system they need to be tackled so that the same mistakes are not repeated. In aviation there must be a fail proof system as consistent as possible and safety nets need to be placed where there is an identified risk. The regulations allow me to start a flight with minimum flight plan fuel and 0 extra fuel even with crap weather because a) I have contingency b) I have 1 or more alternate depending on circumstances. The regulations allow me to start a diversion right a minimum diversion fuel and land at my alternate with 30 min fuel (EU OPS) by following exactly my flight plan route. Are we doing this on a day to day scenario ? Of course not, because we assess the threats of bad weather, load extra fuel and use it wisely. Is this system fail proof ? Not at all, especially because we aim everyday on reducing the amount of fuel we carry by reducing contingencies, planning shortest routes flying through all sorts of weather, etc..
But I guess that if for every 100.000 flights one screws up and land on vapours then it's good enough for the statistics.

[gearlever]

If, and I say if there are flaws in the system they need to be tackled so that the same mistakes are not repeated. In aviation there must be a fail proof system as consistent as possible and safety nets need to be placed where there is an identified risk. The regulations allow me to start a flight with minimum flight plan fuel and 0 extra fuel even with crap weather because a) I have contingency b) I have 1 or more alternate depending on circumstances. The regulations allow me to start a diversion right a minimum diversion fuel and land at my alternate with 30 min fuel (EU OPS) by following exactly my flight plan route. Are we doing this on a day to day scenario ? Of course not, because we assess the threats of bad weather, load extra fuel and use it wisely. Is this system fail proof ? Not at all, especially because we aim everyday on reducing the amount of fuel we carry by reducing contingencies, planning shortest routes flying through all sorts of weather, etc..
But I guess that if for every 100.000 flights one screws up and land on vapours then it's good enough for the statistics.

Sonic, I fully agree with your comment/opinion. With current regulations one can end up fully legal in a low fuel situation. During my command course (EU flag carrier) it was demonstrated how a flight in the middle of Europe (xxxx to LFPG for example) with min fuel may end..... But, it's not only the regulator, it's also a matter of company culture/training.

[EDLB]

But I guest that if for every 100.000 flights one screws up and land on vapours then it's good enough for the statistics.
No it‘s not. With approaching 40 Million flights per year this number would mean one Gimli glider per day.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-number-of-flights/

[krismiler]

In an emergency, the commander may take action he considers necessary to ensure the safety of the flight including breaking minimums, however he must be able to justify his actions and will get a grilling from the experts who have had days to analyse a decision he had to take in minutes whilst under considerable pressure.

Breaking minimums or continuing to land from an unstabilized approach may be the safest option in some situations, but expect to have to explain how you got into that predicament in the first place, ie why didn't you divert earlier whilst you still had the fuel ? Some pilots would go around with minimum fuel and weather closing in simply because they were slightly outside the stabilized criteria at 1000' with a 4000m runway in front of them.

[FlightDetent]

EDLB, fair call on the rate though I suspect it was never meant to withstand the scrutiny of real mathematics - just a figure of speech. Kindly note that data on how many arrive to land with less than FRSV are not available for review, thus we do not really know how bad it is. I assume the G.g reference was also not to be taken literally.

[sonicbum]

No it‘s not. With approaching 40 Million flights per year this number would mean one Gimli glider per day.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-number-of-flights/


As FlightDetent said, mine was just a random number out there, just to emphasize that often what we call “safe” is “statistically safe”. It would be interesting though to run an experiment on a set of flights diverting right at minimum div. fuel in different kind of weather and operational constraints and pull out the statistics on landing fuel at the alternate.

[FlightDetent]

I like to think not many divert at ALTN + FRSV level - after a go-around. If so, then without shooting the approach first thus carrying approx 12 mins more.

For the European operators, the more conservative decision to commit takes precedence, if WX, not a factor.

[sonicbum]

I like to think not many divert at ALTN + FRSV level - after a go-around. If so, then without shooting the approach first thus carrying approx 12 mins more.

For the European operators, the more conservative decision to commit takes precedence, if WX, not a factor.

Very true. And the reason is we all know that diverting right a minimum div. fuel to the best fuel single runway alternate in the middle of nowhere and getting there with 30 min fuel is a bad idea, and we'd rather wait at our 3 runways with CAT III ILS destination, and maybe land with 1 hour fuel in the tanks. Funny thing is that, in this scenario, I am aware that a few operators require the submission of an "ASR" for committing.