Another disaster averted

[Ken Borough]

If this report doesn't disturb, little else will. Amazingly, it’s not been picked up by the media, especially in the bastion of free speech - Singapore. SQ take 280 souls to death's door and there's silence. Incredibly, the report fails to mention the actual fuel remaining at the end of the landing roll but perhaps there wasn’t any to report. At least the service on board is good and the girls are so pretty!

https://www.mot.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/b777-300er-low-on-final-reserve-fuel-25-oct-22-final-report.pdf

[dctPub]

So does SQ just autoland everywhere?

edit: FO with 2900 hours TT and 2900 on type. Probably never performed a visual approach in their career.

Not their fault. And if this was a crash management would probably use this to reinforce automation.

[VHOED191006]

For some reason, I could hear the Benny Hill theme song playing whilst reading this.

[dr dre]

Incredibly, the report fails to mention the actual fuel remaining at the end of the landing roll but perhaps there wasn’t any to report.

They did 2 missed approaches after declaring Mayday Fuel, and touched down 26 minutes later. A passenger commented on AvHerald that all power was lost (engines and APU) due lack of fuel shortly after taxiing off the runway. They probably had 4 minutes or so of fuel remaining on touchdown - lucky there was enough in the tanks to still be able to pumped to the engines on their final approach.

[Lookleft]

Ken did you know that Qantas landed at Munich in a 747 below fixed reserve minimum because there were unforecast storms at Frankfurt? Does that disturb you or is it only when Asian carriers do it that your airmanship sensibilities are outraged.

[Ken Borough]

LL,

Erm, no!

[KRviator]

So how much did they actually land with? The report simply says "fuel remaining significantly below the FRF of 3,024 kg" without giving an actual figure. If the AvH comment mentioned in dr dre 's post is accurate, would have been less than 100kg on touchdown?

Seems to be contradicted from the report though which says they taxied to the bayAfter the aircraft arrived at the parking bay at Batam Airport, the flight crew shut down the engines but left the auxiliary power unit (APU) running to provide conditioned air to the aircraft cabin when the passengers waited for the aircraft to take off again for Changi Airport. The flight crew did not deactivate the CVR and FDR.

[43Inches]

A lot of large airlines now have powerhouse PR departments, with a scale of operations that infringe on monopolies with power well beyond just market control. Their sphere of litigious influence not only causes the media to think twice on reporting minor transgressions but also regulatory investigations will be kept hush hush for long periods. Large airlines have the ability to hide investigations and delay them until much after the event, which markedly reduces the negative public perception of the incident. I can think of several ATSB investigations into certain airline incidents that have been behind closed doors due to 'not being in the public interest'.

As for SQ is any more dangerous that any other airline in the region, I think something happened in Bangkok a few years back to a local airline, the Rome incident, Munich incident, Perth incident, Mildura etc etc etc. There was also a foreign airline that comes here often that managed to wheels up a 777 during a go-round, and another scrape its arse through a field after the end of the runway. Nobodies perfect as they say...

[twentyelevens]

Ken did you know that Qantas landed at Munich in a 747 below fixed reserve minimum because there were unforecast storms at Frankfurt? Does that disturb you or is it only when Asian carriers do it that your airmanship sensibilities are outraged.
Some type of record. 5th post in, and you play the racism card to what was a legitimate discussion starting thread.
Start your own thread on the QF flight landing at Munich if it interests you so much. It would even out your 'racism' ledger.
Also wondering LL? Would it blow your mind if the Munich QF PIC was Asian Australian? Or do you just assume.

[dr dre]

A lot of large airlines now have powerhouse PR departments, with a scale of operations that infringe on monopolies with power well beyond just market control. Their sphere of litigious influence not only causes the media to think twice on reporting minor transgressions but also regulatory investigations will be kept hush hush for long periods. Large airlines have the ability to hide investigations and delay them until much after the event, which markedly reduces the negative public perception of the incident.

SQ is majority owned by the Singapore government. Who are the ones who investigated them. Its the Singaporean government protecting the image of their national asset. I see this incident has barely made a ripple in any media, Singapore or abroad even though SQ is one of the biggest international carriers in this country. The media is only interested in attacking one carrier at the moment.

[C441]

As for SQ is any more dangerous that any other airline in the region, I think something happened in Bangkok a few years back to a local airline, the Rome incident, Munich incident, Perth incident, Mildura etc etc etc.
I don't believe SQ are any better or worse than most reputable airlines operating to and through Australia. However there is something of a difference between the aforementioned incidents/accidents and SQ006 23 years ago this month that claimed 83 lives after the Captain and two other pilots misidentified (or didn't attempt to identify at all) the fact that they were on the closed and obstacle loaded runway 05R instead of 05L in poor vis in Taipei.

At the time, that local bastion of media significance, The Straits Times, were full of praise for the Singaporean cabin crew who'd saved countless survivors and not so thinly veiled blame-apportioning to the apparently 'non-Singaporean' Captain. The airline were to be highly praised according to the local rag.

[43Inches]

However there is something of a difference between the aforementioned incidents/accidents and SQ006 23 years ago this month that claimed 83 lives after the Captain and two other pilots misidentified (or didn't attempt to identify at all) the fact that they were on the closed and obstacle loaded runway 05R instead of 05L in poor vis in Taipei.

The QF excursion at Bangkok was pure luck that there was no fire and no loss of life for exactly the same brain fart that led to an experienced crew taking off on the wrong runway in a typhoon. QF 1 was just an experienced crew screwing up a landing in similar conditions. The Qf crew were just extremely lucky there were not more substancial obstacles in the overshoot, the torrential rain subdued any fire and so on. Australia really is the lucky country in some respects as we have had a number of seriously close calls that didn't translate into loss of life. This could easily have been a Tenerife style disaster at Sydney airport, (years before the actual Tenerife) the baggage hold was ripped open and luggage strewn across the runway: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1971/aair/aair197101202

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2tY-Cadnk_KU7bfu4BDs9PPELMGB7clgY3w&usqp=CAU
That's the damage to VH-TJA after the impact in flight with the tail of the DC-8.

[Dora-9]

thinly veiled blame-apportioning to the apparently 'non-Singaporean' Captain.

They gleefully reported him as Malaysian.

[Ken Borough]

It was somewhat sickening to read in Monday’s StraitsTimes a full page spread on the wonderful job done by SIA preparing for and managing disruptions. A near perfect example of propaganda, not unlike Pravda or the Peoples Daily. Comparatively, the Australian and UK media are paragons of objectivity and virtue.

[dctPub]

Yet another thread hijacked by Qaintas.

[Lookleft]

Some type of record. 5th post in, and you play the racism card to what was a legitimate discussion starting thread.
Start your own thread on the QF flight landing at Munich if it interests you so much. It would even out your 'racism' ledger.
Also wondering LL? Would it blow your mind if the Munich QF PIC was Asian Australian? Or do you just assume.

Its always best to not take in too much alcohol before posting. Legitimate thread, really? On what planet do you live on where an incident involving an SQ aircraft in Singapore is legitimate on the Australia New Zealand and Pacific forum? If Ken was so concerned about public safety standards then why not post it on Rumours and News or even Accident and Close Calls? Why should the Australian media be at all interested. The fact that its an Asian carrier might be enough to peak the interest of the Australian media. To finish his rant he states: ​​​​​​​At least the service on board is good and the girls are so pretty! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... you know the rest.

[twentyelevens]

Its always best to not take in too much alcohol before posting. Legitimate thread, really? On what planet do you live on where an incident involving an SQ aircraft in Singapore is legitimate on the Australia New Zealand and Pacific forum? If Ken was so concerned about public safety standards then why not post it on Rumours and News or even Accident and Close Calls? Why should the Australian media be at all interested. The fact that its an Asian carrier might be enough to peak the interest of the Australian media. To finish his rant he states:
Quote:
​​​​​​​At least the service on board is good and the girls are so pretty!
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... you know the rest.

​​​​​​​LL
Well, you answered one question. You assume. So thanks for that.
Don’t bother about answering the others, I’d imagine it’d be a stretch having to define an argument on top of all the ideological luggage you heft around. Take it up with the Moderators if you think this thread is misplaced - better still, become one, although collaboration with others around censorship may impinge on your Andrews-esk authoritarian streak.
Nevermind eh, there’s always tomorrow’s FO to boss around and confect outrage on.

Back to the thread.

[BuzzBox]

So does SQ just autoland everywhere?

I doubt it, but the reported visibility at the time was 500m (below the 800m visibility required for the approach :ooh:). An autoland might have been sensible IF it had been approved, but it wasn't.

[hawk_eye]

Haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere in the Aus and NZ forum ….but speaking of close calls:

https://australianaviation.com.au/2023/09/atsb-investigates-as-two-planes-overrun-melbourne-runway/

[Ken Borough]

This topic is as very relevant in this forum, especially as Singapore Airlines operates more wide-body services to/from Australia than any other foreign carrier. Just sayin'.

[43Inches]

Haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere in the Aus and NZ forum ….but speaking of close calls:

https://australianaviation.com.au/2023/09/atsb-investigates-as-two-planes-overrun-melbourne-runway/

Very worrying each of those, somebody has indeed kept very tight lipped if indeed at least one rotated beyond the displaced threshold. That would mean they had to be operating on near full or full length numbers and just lucky there was no large equipment or serious holes in the area they transgressed, even luckier they did not have a reject from near v1.

[DogTailRed2]

How many people have died due to low or zero fuel scenarios versus pilot error?
What do the stats say as to whether this should bother me or not?
Several airliners have been dead sticked for one reason or another with no loss of life. At least one with zero fuel.

[VHOED191006]

Very worrying each of those, somebody has indeed kept very tight lipped if indeed at least one rotated beyond the displaced threshold. That would mean they had to be operating on near full or full length numbers and just lucky there was no large equipment or serious holes in the area they transgressed, even luckier they did not have a reject from near v1.
Even more concerning, it was very clearly stated in the ATIS as well (declared dists. too). Did they even bother to check it?

[KRviator]

How many people have died due to low or zero fuel scenarios versus pilot error?
What do the stats say as to whether this should bother me or not?
Several airliners have been dead sticked for one reason or another with no loss of life. At least one with zero fuel.A short list from a few I can recall, aided by Google...More if you dig deeper or go back further...
LaMia Flight 2933 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaMia_Flight_2933) - The South American BAe146 a few years back. 71 killed.
Tuninter Flight 1153 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuninter_Flight_1153) - The ATR72 with the 42 fuel gauges fitted. 16 killed.
ALM980 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALM_Flight_980) - A DC-9 that ditched after running out of fuel following several approach attempts. 23 killed.
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961) - That hijacked 767. 125 killed.
United 173 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173) - A DC-8 that ran out of fuel troubleshooting a gear indication. 10 killed.
Varig Flight 254 (http://Varig Flight 254) - Navigation fault led to fuel exhaustion over the Amazon. 12 killed.

Annnnd

Avianca 52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052). The 707 that ran out of fuel in NY. 73 killed. Thanks, CS. :ok:

[VHOED191006]

How many people have died due to low or zero fuel scenarios versus pilot error?
What do the stats say as to whether this should bother me or not?
Several airliners have been dead sticked for one reason or another with no loss of life. At least one with zero fuel.
It's not that. It's the fact that a crew that has been trained to a high standard at a respected and world-renowned airline didn't take charge of an already deteriorating situation, nor take the initiative to divert earlier which could have prevented this whole mess. Plus, they went around on one of their gazillion attempts to land at Batam all because they couldn't autoland (despite being visual).

So, one must wonder what on earth was going on?

[Chronic Snoozer]

A short list from a few I can recall, aided by Google...More if you dig deeper or go back further...
LaMia Flight 2933 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaMia_Flight_2933) - The South American BAe146 a few years back. 71 killed.
Tuninter Flight 1153 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuninter_Flight_1153) - The ATR72 with the 42 fuel gauges fitted. 16 killed.
ALM980 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALM_Flight_980) - A DC-9 that ditched after running out of fuel following several approach attempts. 23 killed.
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961) - That hijacked 767. 125 killed.
United 173 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173) - A DC-8 that ran out of fuel troubleshooting a gear indication. 10 killed.
Varig Flight 254 (http://Varig Flight 254) - Navigation fault led to fuel exhaustion over the Amazon. 12 killed.

How could you forget Avianca 052, the trigger for “Mayday” fuel?

[Lookleft]

​​​​​​​LL
Well, you answered one question. You assume. So thanks for that.
Don’t bother about answering the others, I’d imagine it’d be a stretch having to define an argument on top of all the ideological luggage you heft around. Take it up with the Moderators if you think this thread is misplaced - better still, become one, although collaboration with others around censorship may impinge on your Andrews-esk authoritarian streak.
Nevermind eh, there’s always tomorrow’s FO to boss around and confect outrage on.

With the current rental crisis at least I am assured of living rent free in somone's mind.

[KRviator]

How could you forget Avianca 052, the trigger for “Mayday” fuel?Damned if I know how I didn't include it, CS! I know I meant to as it was the very first one I Googled to get the link for! Clearly my BBCode skills need a bit of tweaking....:{Still, appreciate you highlighting that one too and it's now in the list as well.. ;)

[old,not bold]

Several airliners have been dead sticked for one reason or another with no loss of life. At least one with zero fuel.Indeed, and here's one of them... (https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/weekend-night-plane-full-people-4626342)

[Klimax]

Ken did you know that Qantas landed at Munich in a 747 below fixed reserve minimum because there were unforecast storms at Frankfurt? Does that disturb you or is it only when Asian carriers do it that your airmanship sensibilities are outraged.

Clown. Focus on the OP. I know it´s a hard banana to swallow, but try and focus. No need to get emotional mate.

[Sailvi767]

There were so many things done wrong in the last 45 minutes of the flight it’s hard to even keep track of all the issues. I also find it odd the report omits the actual fuel state on landing. They certainly had that information so why omit the quantity?

[SOPS]

I always said.. “ Fuel is a good substitute for brains” ….and the bean counters could send me as many emails as they liked about my fuel loads…they were not ( generally) in my aircraft. SIN with TS on the TAF… I would carry an extra 60 mins fuel, regardless of what LIDO told me.

My policy got me through 22000 hours without any “ I should have worn my brown trousers “ moments.

[Klimax]

There were so many things done wrong in the last 45 minutes of the flight it’s hard to even keep track of all the issues. I also find it odd the report omits the actual fuel state on landing. They certainly had that information so why omit the quantity?

They say Singapore as a states has no tolerance on corruption. Well, well, well. Not quite the same as no corruption. It´s pretty clear that in Singapore - there IS corruption and corrupted investigations. It´s quite obvious what´s at stake here - considering the subject report and Singaporean Airlines. Yes, hindsight 20/20 and all that, which very often is not irrelevant to consider - but not in this case. It´s mind blowing - the level of incompetence and lack of common situational awareness demonstrated by this crew. The report ending with no recommendations and not factually presenting the arrival fuel. Relevant? YES, relevant. The investigation report stinks all the way to the grave - which was imminently close to those onboard this flight. Disgusting illustration of a totalitarian regime and its reach and willingness to cover up. This event and the handling has NO place in the world of aviation. The community and industry thinks we´ve some so far - and then we get this type of incident and this type of handling. Very disappointing - yet not surprising I suppose.

[RichardJones]

When I was in aviation I used go by the old adage, "the only time you have too much fuel, is when you are on fire".
With many scenarios , the legal minimum fuel, is not enough, for me.
I did not like the policey of "enroute alternates" either.
When operating to and from Africa for example and within it was often, not enough.
It's worth reminding ourselves this. " It is not a crime to have an accident. But it is most certainly a crime to rrun out of fuel".

[EDMJ]

Quantas stopped flying to Frankfurt about 10 years ago, if I‘m not mistaken. If correct, where‘s the comparison then?

[Jester64]

I always said.. “ Fuel is a good substitute for brains” ….and the bean counters could send me as many emails as they liked about my fuel loads…they were not ( generally) in my aircraft. SIN with TS on the TAF… I would carry an extra 60 mins fuel, regardless of what LIDO told me.

My policy got me through 22000 hours without any “ I should have worn my brown trousers “ moments.

Flying previously in Australia conditions us that we take 60 minutes for any TAF endorsed with a CB or TS and it’s a great thing. It just never feels right to not take 60 minutes, even though it’s not required (referring to most non-Australian operator rules). Sometimes I get “don’t you think it’s a bit too much” back-lash from the other guy, but they don’t realise the alternate is often close by and endorsed with the same kind of TAF.

[nose,cabin]

SIA policy is always carry alternative airport fuel.
ALL AIRPORTS

unlike other airlines with less restriction fuel policy.

Read this report auto land at Perth, no mention of remaining fuel onboard, it was very LOW…

https://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/threads/perth-airport-is-it-rated-for-an-autoland.18859/

[Lookleft]

Clown. Focus on the OP. I know it´s a hard banana to swallow, but try and focus. No need to get emotional mate.

Another incoherent rant from someone who seems to have plenty of issues with the Singaporean Government:

​​​​​​​They say Singapore as a states has no tolerance on corruption. Well, well, well. Not quite the same as no corruption. It´s pretty clear that in Singapore - there IS corruption and corrupted investigations. It´s quite obvious what´s at stake here - considering the subject report and Singaporean Airlines. Yes, hindsight 20/20 and all that, which very often is not irrelevant to consider - but not in this case. It´s mind blowing - the level of incompetence and lack of common situational awareness demonstrated by this crew. The report ending with no recommendations and not factually presenting the arrival fuel. Relevant? YES, relevant. The investigation report stinks all the way to the grave - which was imminently close to those onboard this flight. Disgusting illustration of a totalitarian regime and its reach and willingness to cover up. This event and the handling has NO place in the world of aviation. The community and industry thinks we´ve some so far - and then we get this type of incident and this type of handling. Very disappointing - yet not surprising I suppose.

Hardly an unemotional treatise of what is wrong with Singapore. Interesting that three posters have objections to a national carrier being protected by a national government. It does sound vaguely familiar. The example provided by nose, cabin is more recent (same fuel policy though as the Frankfurt incident) and just another example of reputable airlines having to autoland when FOB is getting critical.

Good to know though that my portfolio of rent free accommodation has doubled.

[C441]

Ansett landed a DC9 in Groote Eylandt in mid-1980 with almost no fuel - not enough for another circuit.

It was a Cairns - Gove flight with a reasonable amount of fuel but not enough for a couple of go-rounds off the non runway aligned VOR approach in Gove and a diversion to Darwin. Groote was not an approved DC-9 airport and the jet remained at the eastern end of the runway for a couple of days before being very carefully turned around and taxied to the apron.

Imagine the media (social and other) coverage that would get today.

[Hollywood1]

13 hour flight from LHR, with the only 2 crew? Possibly fatigue was a factor in their decision making process.

[VHOED191006]

13 hour flight from LHR, with the only 2 crew? Possibly fatigue was a factor in their decision making process.
I doubt there were only 2 crew onboard. There definitely would have been a 3rd in the jumpseat.

[SOPS]

Ansett landed a DC9 in Groote Eylandt in mid-1980 with almost no fuel - not enough for another circuit.

It was a Cairns - Gove flight with a reasonable amount of fuel but not enough for a couple of go-rounds off the non runway aligned VOR approach in Gove and a diversion to Darwin. Groote was not an approved DC-9 airport and the jet remained at the eastern end of the runway for a couple of days before being very carefully turned around and taxied to the apron.

Imagine the media (social and other) coverage that would get today.

And the F 28 that diverted from Derby to Fitzroy Crossing using car headlights to light the strip. ( Google it.. there is a good video about it.)

[twentyelevens]

And the F 28 that diverted from Derby to Fitzroy Crossing using car headlights to light the strip. ( Google it.. there is a good video about it.)
It's a great story indeed SOPS, but the video should have an immediate disqualification due to the appearance of arse clown extrodinare and laughably self claimed "aviaiton expert", Geoffrey Thomas

[Capn Bloggs]

I doubt there were only 2 crew onboard. There definitely would have been a 3rd in the jumpseat.
There were only two pilots on the flight deck. Read the report.

[BuzzBox]

No. Read the report.


Err, not quite. The footnote on page 2 of the report states:

The flight was operated by an augmented crew comprising two Captains and one First Officer. The second Captain was not in the flight deck at the time of occurrence, as this was not the operator’s requirement.

[Lead Balloon]

And therefore not in the jump seat...

[BuzzBox]

And therefore not in the jump seat...

Very clever. :rolleyes:

[Chris2303]

Report: Singapore B773 at Batam on Oct 25th 2022, landed significantly below required final reserve fuel (http://avherald.com/h?article=50f11fc3&opt=0)

Quote:
"I happened to be on this flight and at the time couldn’t understand why they had not diverted to KLIA or Batam significantly earlier given the localise weather conditions.

Shortly after successful landing a short taxi was completed arriving near a gate, but before the doors were opened or a connecting bridge/stair way arrived, the aircraft lost all power, without warning. A refuelling was completed with passengers on board before attempting to restart the AGPU which ultimately failed. Later a ground generator arrived and provided external power which also continued to drop out frequently. In the end all passengers disembarked and were held until an engineering crew could be flown in from SIN. 30 minutes after engineering crew arrival the passengers reboarded, power restored and was able to take off.

Eventual arrival was 12+ hours after original scheduled arrival time."

[VHOED191006]

Err, not quite. The footnote on page 2...:
Missed that part. Woops

Very clever. :rolleyes:
Indeed very clever.

[Lead Balloon]

Gawd. The title of the thread is sarcastic. I suppose I should start using emojis to make even more obvious the bleeding obvious.

[RichardJones]

The QF excursion at Bangkok was pure luck that there was no fire and no loss of life for exactly the same brain fart that led to an experienced crew taking off on the wrong runway in a typhoon. QF 1 was just an experienced crew screwing up a landing in similar conditions. The Qf crew were just extremely lucky there were not more substancial obstacles in the overshoot, the torrential rain subdued any fire and so on. Australia really is the lucky country in some respects as we have had a number of seriously close calls that didn't translate into loss of life. This could easily have been a Tenerife style disaster at Sydney airport, (years before the actual Tenerife) the baggage hold was ripped open and luggage strewn across the runway: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1971/aair/aair197101202

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2tY-Cadnk_KU7bfu4BDs9PPELMGB7clgY3w&usqp=CAU
That's the damage to VH-TJA after the impact in flight with the tail of the DC-8.

Too often, before I retired I saw a lot of heads down, fiddling with the FMS for eg.Taxing, all eyes outside the cockpit. More critical at line up, of course.

[Klimax]

Another incoherent rant from someone who seems to have plenty of issues with the Singaporean Government:



Hardly an unemotional treatise of what is wrong with Singapore. Interesting that three posters have objections to a national carrier being protected by a national government. It does sound vaguely familiar. The example provided by nose, cabin is more recent (same fuel policy though as the Frankfurt incident) and just another example of reputable airlines having to autoland when FOB is getting critical.

Good to know though that my portfolio of rent free accommodation has doubled.

Glad to see that at you admit that this very near fatal Singaporean Airlines passenger jet incident was protected by the Singaporean government - we agree on that.
Of other low fuel incidents reported (that we have investigation reports on) - how many were "protected" (most of us would call that corrupted) by their governments? Probably the Chinese incidents, but other than that?

[nose,cabin]

Good Airmanship. Needed.

Quote

‘The flight was operated by an augmented crew comprising two Captains and one First Officer. The second Captain was not in the flight deck at the time of occurrence, as this was not the operator’s requirement.’



Poor CRM in my opinion having one captain sitting in cabin while landing. (Or Take Off)

Obviously 3 crew provides more crew synergy than 2 crew.
monitor all systems ,fuel remaining and look outside the cockpit.

The QF32 A380 report of incident at WSSS utilises all additional crew to a very successful outcome.

Very professional crew demonstrating excellent CRM.



If a Captain was to sit the cabin not in the cockpit ,

on that take off the outcome may not have been so successful.

[morno]

Good Airmanship. Needed.

Quote

‘The flight was operated by an augmented crew comprising two Captains and one First Officer. The second Captain was not in the flight deck at the time of occurrence, as this was not the operator’s requirement.’



Poor CRM in my opinion having one captain sitting in cabin while landing. (Or Take Off)

Obviously 3 crew provides more crew synergy than 2 crew.
monitor all systems ,fuel remaining and look outside the cockpit.

The QF32 A380 report of incident at WSSS utilises all additional crew to a very successful outcome.

Very professional crew demonstrating excellent CRM.



If a Captain was to sit the cabin not in the cockpit ,

on that take off the outcome may not have been so successful.

I think the better CRM initiative on QF32 would have been to put Captain Hero back in the cabin and let the others deal with it?

[Lookleft]

Glad to see that at you admit that this very near fatal Singaporean Airlines passenger jet incident was protected by the Singaporean government - we agree on that.

Its great I can live rent free, all the space I mean you really need to fill it in with something akin to brain cells. In your warped definition every fuel emergency is a near fatal experience.

[Lookleft]

But you have added nothing useful at all in the thread. Perhaps someone can do an analysis for each decision made and what would have been better. That is where a learning discussion would happen.
And your post added...........?

[MichaelOLearyGenius]

A short list from a few I can recall, aided by Google...More if you dig deeper or go back further...
LaMia Flight 2933 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaMia_Flight_2933) - The South American BAe146 a few years back. 71 killed.
Tuninter Flight 1153 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuninter_Flight_1153) - The ATR72 with the 42 fuel gauges fitted. 16 killed.
ALM980 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALM_Flight_980) - A DC-9 that ditched after running out of fuel following several approach attempts. 23 killed.
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961) - That hijacked 767. 125 killed.
United 173 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173) - A DC-8 that ran out of fuel troubleshooting a gear indication. 10 killed.
Varig Flight 254 (http://Varig Flight 254) - Navigation fault led to fuel exhaustion over the Amazon. 12 killed.

Annnnd

Avianca 52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052). The 707 that ran out of fuel in NY. 73 killed. Thanks, CS. :ok:

a Russian A320 last week that landed in a field. No loss of life mind you

[olster]

Interesting that the report invoked climate change as a reason for changing weather patterns in south east Asia. Utter, utter rubbish. I flew in this region for many years both long and short haul. It was a fact that these generally seasonal thunderstorms could occur with frequency even with a 30pc highly unlikely chance therefore theoretically improbable chance. Yet often the ‘unlikely’ thunderstorm had become a tropical deluge with below cat 1 visibility and consequently flooded runways. It is beyond ridiculous to almost by rote quote climate change as a factor when a sound understanding of local and historical climatology would demonstrate otherwise. As a previous correspondent stated take a lot of extra fuel which is not always possible on ultra long haul but at the very least have a plan. The lack of disciplined and structured DM is disappointing but frankly not surprising.

[Troo believer]

A common misconception is that FRF is the minimum fuel required at the end of the landing roll. 30 minutes.
part 91extract of the MOS..
I could well be incorrect but have a think about this statement and what your company considers minimum fuel. There is something incorrect in the interpretation or application of the MOS part 91 here in Stralya by some airlines including the big one.
Waiting to be corrected but it doesn’t matter until it does.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1389/img_3946_7de1b4a19e3f14000a570accdec8087031fa576e.jpeg

[Prob30Tempo TSRA]

I actually feel a bit sorry for them . Once they decided to divert the tetris pieces came fast and faster .

Im sure nobody sims for what , 2 or 3, GAs when the fuel is getting super tight .

Did it say why there was " no auto land "displayed , was it a switch pigs ?

[Verbal Kint]

We filed an alternate on every single flight. Typically Batam for Singapore, occasionally KL. But whether your fuel policy requires you to carry an alternate (SQ, CX etc) or holding fuel in lieu (Aus carriers), the trick is knowing when to give it away and divert.

That 3rd set of eyes on the flight deck might have helped, but he/she may not have been technically allowed there due being burned out and therefore required to rest in the cabin. I know nothing about Singapore FTL’s, but have operated under such requirements numerous times.

Interesting report.

[Klimax]

Its great I can live rent free, all the space I mean you really need to fill it in with something akin to brain cells. In your warped definition every fuel emergency is a near fatal experience.

Far from, very far from, most declared fuel emergencies origins from the consequences of astonishingly poor fuel/time management, and even fewer of such events ends with multiple go arounds and quite frankly shockingly mismanaged flight execution. Singapore Airlines was as close to putting 280 people in the grave - as you could possible be - all because of target fascination. Makes me sick to read this report - and that´s even in its corrupted version.

I understand you´re living rent free in your circus? You do come across as happy clueless clown. The uber Clown.

[kellykelpie]

Lookleft, I’m surprised you’re so sensitive to this thread. The initial post was highlighting that there was no coverage in the press of such a close call. The investigation report itself does not mention the final fuel figure (other than well below FFR). Do you agree that this has been hushed up a little? Why so defensive?

[Sailvi767]

Report: Singapore B773 at Batam on Oct 25th 2022, landed significantly below required final reserve fuel (http://avherald.com/h?article=50f11fc3&opt=0)

Quote:
"I happened to be on this flight and at the time couldn’t understand why they had not diverted to KLIA or Batam significantly earlier given the localise weather conditions.

Shortly after successful landing a short taxi was completed arriving near a gate, but before the doors were opened or a connecting bridge/stair way arrived, the aircraft lost all power, without warning. A refuelling was completed with passengers on board before attempting to restart the AGPU which ultimately failed. Later a ground generator arrived and provided external power which also continued to drop out frequently. In the end all passengers disembarked and were held until an engineering crew could be flown in from SIN. 30 minutes after engineering crew arrival the passengers reboarded, power restored and was able to take off.

Eventual arrival was 12+ hours after original scheduled arrival time."

This sounds like an accurate account meaning the aircraft had essentially zero fuel as they cleared the runway. The issues with restarting the APU after it flamed out due to fuel starvation are normal. The long APU fuel line requires a maintenance technician to bleed the line after fueling to get the APU back online.

[C441]

A common misconception is that FRF is the minimum fuel required at the end of the landing roll. 30 minutes.
part 91extract of the MOS..
I could well be incorrect but have a think about this statement and what your company considers minimum fuel. There is something incorrect in the interpretation or application of the MOS part 91 here in Stralya by some airlines including the big one.
Waiting to be corrected but it doesn’t matter until it does.

Maybe the addition of the word "usable" would be appropriate. FFR is "30 minutes usable fuel".

I can't think of any checklist/Flight manual procedure on anything I've flown that would not be covered by the addition of that word.

[bobbytables]

I actually feel a bit sorry for them . Once they decided to divert the tetris pieces came fast and faster .

Im sure nobody sims for what , 2 or 3, GAs when the fuel is getting super tight .

Did it say why there was " no auto land "displayed , was it a switch pigs ?

Batam 04 localiser is offset from runway heading, so no autoland. In an ideal world the crew would have known that…

[AQIS Boigu]

Batam 04 localiser is offset from runway heading, so no autoland. In an ideal world the crew would have known that…


You’d think that any SIN based pilot would know without looking at the port pages that their primary alternate didn’t have A/L capability

Johor Bahru is also available just up the road - I wasn’t there but I just can’t imagine that all three airports had crap weather.

Sounds like the crew threw away KL as a diversion option after the first go around

Any afternoon arrival in SE Asia can have “that” CB over the field - just take the gas

[Lead Balloon]

What's the "misconception" of FRF in Australia? The prescribed FRF is a specified number of minutes of "flight time". An aircraft's "flight" ends "the moment at which it comes to rest after being airborne". That looks to me very much like the end of the landing roll. If it's intended to cover the period taxiing to the gate, that's not very clear.

[BuzzBox]

Did it say why there was " no auto land "displayed , was it a switch pigs ?

As others have already mentioned, the localiser is offset from the runway heading, so autoland is not available. As for what caused the NO AUTOLAND message, the B777 AFDS monitors 30 or so parameters to determine the autoland status. NO AUTOLAND can result from a downgrade of the status from LAND 3 or LAND 2; or if neither LAND 3 nor LAND 2 is annunciated by 600 ft AGL. In this case the PF disengaged the autopilot at about 1,200 ft AGL to manually capture the glideslope and localiser. He then re-engaged the autopilot at a little over 600 ft AGL and was met with a NO AUTOLAND message. The message would have appeared because neither LAND 3 nor LAND 2 was annunciated by 600 ft AGL.

Sounds like the crew threw away KL as a diversion option after the first go around

The report says the estimated fuel on landing at SIN was initially 7,000 kg, ie FRF plus about 45 mins. They might have scraped into KUL if they'd diverted immediately after being told to hold at PASPU, but the first go-around didn't occur until 50 minutes later, after they'd diverted to BTH. By that time they didn't have fuel to divert anywhere!

Johor Bahru is also available just up the road - I wasn’t there but I just can’t imagine that all three airports had crap weather.

The report also says the two planned destination alternates were Paya Lebar and Senai (Johor Bahru). The crew indicated that, while holding at PASPU, the aircraft's weather radar showed heavy precipitation over Changi and both the alternates, while the weather appeared fine over Batam.

[neville_nobody]

What's the "misconception" of FRF in Australia? The prescribed FRF is a specified number of minutes of "flight time". An aircraft's "flight" ends "the moment at which it comes to rest after being airborne". That looks to me very much like the end of the landing roll. If it's intended to cover the period taxiing to the gate, that's not very clear.

Australian rules have always been the end of the landing roll. For example there is a major event at an airport that closes all terminals. You hold and then land 100kg above fix reserve but taxi around for 2 hours and run out of fuel waiting for a gate you haven't broken any Australian Aviation rules AFAIK.

[BuzzBox]

Maybe the addition of the word "usable" would be appropriate. FFR is "30 minutes usable fuel".

Amongst other things, the Part 121 MOS defines FRF as the amount of fuel : "which is usable fuel that is remaining on completion of the final landing at the aerodrome."

[43Inches]

Whether you have fuel to taxi is a moot point, once you are cutting into final/fixed reserve prior to completing the landing you have busted the law and in emergency territory. If the engines stop due to fuel exhaustion just after vacating the runway it's obvious that you did not have 30 minutes airborne, or any sort of reserves remaining.

[Global Aviator]

The most interesting part of the report is the final landing. They obviously knew they were just about on fumes with a teardrop procedure onto the landing runway. This would have been so outside the box for the crew, obviously hitting the oh **** point.

Culture certainly comes into play here, google and read the report on the 777 engine fire on the runway, hesitation and unwillingness to make a command decision.

I type this as I’m about to board an SQ flight so take that as you will.

[Troo believer]

Amongst other things, the Part 121 MOS defines FRF as the amount of fuel : "which is usable fuel that is remaining on completion of the final landing at the aerodrome."
Does the aircraft you fly have a LOW FUEL checklist? If so is the amount that triggers the low fuel checklist greater than the FRF? Part 91 MOS refers directly to this ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-15v1.1

https://www.casa.gov.au/guidelines-aircraft-fuel-requirements#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20AC,their%20 operations%20manual%20or%20exposition.

read page 25.

737ng Low Fuel is at 1.8 FRF is approximately 1.2
787. Low Fuel is at 3.4 FRF is approximately 2.1
checklist says land asap.

[Capn Bloggs]

read page 25.
Page 24.

[BuzzBox]

Does the aircraft you fly have a LOW FUEL checklist? If so is the amount that triggers the low fuel checklist greater than the FRF? Part 91 MOS refers directly to this ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-15v1.1

Of course, and yes.

To be honest, I think you're reading too much into the AC. The low fuel procedure (eg. open crossfeed valves, boost pumps on, etc) is intended to ensure the fuel remaining is usable by the engines. The fuel quantity that triggers the procedures is not a "minimum fuel quantity" below which you're not supposed to operate, even though you might need to land ASAP.

[Troo believer]

Of course, and yes.

To be honest, I think you're reading too much into the AC. The low fuel procedure (eg. open crossfeed valves, boost pumps on, etc) is intended to ensure the fuel remaining is usable by the engines. The fuel quantity that triggers the procedures is not a "minimum fuel quantity" below which you're not supposed to operate, even though you might need to land ASAP.

Are you sure about that?

from the QRH (Boeing 787)
a couple of pertinent notes to help your decision making process
Note: Avoid high nose up attitude. Make thrust changes slowly and smoothly. This reduces the possibility of uncovering fuel pumps
Note: Use flaps 20 and VREF 20 for landing. Increased airspeed at flaps 20 gives improved elevator control for landing flare in the event of a dual engine flameout. Check the Non-Normal Configuration Landing Distance tables in the Performance Inflight-QRH chapter or other approved source.

[BuzzBox]

Are you sure about that?

from the QRH (Boeing 787)
a couple of pertinent notes to help your decision making process
Note: Avoid high nose up attitude. Make thrust changes slowly and smoothly. This reduces the possibility of uncovering fuel pumps
Note: Use flaps 20 and VREF 20 for landing. Increased airspeed at flaps 20 gives improved elevator control for landing flare in the event of a dual engine flameout. Check the Non-Normal Configuration Landing Distance tables in the Performance Inflight-QRH chapter or other approved source.

The AC states: "There may be requirements, instructions, procedures, or limitations contained in aircraft flight manuals which establish minimum fuel quantity values that exceed the legislative minimum values. Where these exist, the flight manual value must be complied with." There are certainly procedures that must be followed in the event of a low fuel state. However, as I said previously, the triggering fuel quantity is not some minimum value below which you must not operate.

If you think it's an issue, I suggest you take it up with your fleet technical people.

[Manwell]

Sorry, but it doesn't disturb. The title says it all "Another disaster averted". Why anyone would think it disturbing is a reflection of their own thinking, rather than the event.

[43Inches]

In this case the crew used all the fuel before making the decision they had to land. In the Mildura situation the first jet to land 'may' have had over an hour of fuel left on board, but still busted the minima, and the company made sure the actual fuel logs and state were not released to the ATSB, the ATSB only had access to the dispatch calculation and a statement 'the captain routinely uplifts more fuel'. Prior to diversion the first crew to land there stated in the report that they had enough fuel to cover a TEMPO on arrival at Mildura, however they basically went straight into the approach 'due fuel' and landed. The ATSB even calculated that if they had held at altitude they could have still returned to Adelaide at 0955 almost 10 minutes after they had landed in Mildura, and that was based on minimum fuel uplift from Sydney. I don't have to tell you which airline that was, it was not SQ, and I would consider the lack of compliance with the ATSB on the issue as substantial or the ATSB has chosen not to release such data due to the implications with regard to CAR 257. Now does that constitute an airline having its arse covered or not...

[Lead Balloon]

I think the title was intended to be sarcastic (but I assume the thread starter will correct me if I'm wrong).

Describing a disaster as having been "averted" implies some sort of timely and competent - even heroic - intervention that resulted in the disaster not happening. In this case the assessment of experienced and qualified professionals appears to me to be that a lack of timely and competent intervention increased the risks of a disaster, and that luck played a large part in the outcome.

[43Inches]

I think the title was intended to be sarcastic (but I assume the thread starter will correct me if I'm wrong).

Describing a disaster as having been "averted" implies some sort of timely and competent - even heroic - intervention that resulted in the disaster not happening. In this case the assessment of experienced and qualified professionals appears to me to be that a lack of timely and competent intervention increased the risks of a disaster, and that luck played a large part in the outcome.

I think its better to say that despite the best efforts of the crew to create a disaster, the disaster was just never going to happen this day.

[Rabbit 1]

Maybe SQ had a policy of pinning up in their crew room a graph showing fuel consumption for each month, with the captains name alongside it? I know JQ did because my name was on it. SE Asia again, but those monthly pin-ups in the crew room sure did get attention. It then became a competition to see who could get the lowest reading. Check captains included. It was a subliminal farce to post those statistics and most of us ignored it.

[Global Aviator]

Maybe SQ had a policy of pinning up in their crew room a graph showing fuel consumption for each month, with the captains name alongside it? I know JQ did because my name was on it. SE Asia again, but those monthly pin-ups in the crew room sure did get attention. It then became a competition to see who could get the lowest reading. Check captains included. It was a subliminal farce to post those statistics and most of us ignored it.

JQ, crew room SE Asia… Hmmmm I’m calling bull****e!

[Rabbit 1]

Let me make it easier and perhaps I could have explained this better. BL. Pretty much JQ though. Still calling this bull****e Global Aviator?

[VHOED191006]

Maybe SQ had a policy of pinning up in their crew room a graph showing fuel consumption for each month, with the captains name alongside it? I know JQ did because my name was on it. SE Asia again, but those monthly pin-ups in the crew room sure did get attention. It then became a competition to see who could get the lowest reading. Check captains included. It was a subliminal farce to post those statistics and most of us ignored it.
Isn't that the reason as to why that GA 737 in Yogyakarta crashed? The Captain was in such a rush to use as little fuel as possible in order to gain a bonus?

[Global Aviator]

Let me make it easier and perhaps I could have explained this better. BL. Pretty much JQ though. Still calling this bull****e Global Aviator?

I can admit when I’m wrong, Jetstar Pacific I would certainly believe. You did say JQ though.

[Rabbit 1]

I can admit when I’m wrong, Jetstar Pacific I would certainly believe. You did say JQ though.

BL ops were all under control of JQ, including their managers at the time. That list didn't last long, maybe 4-6 months before the scenery changed.

[JamieMaree]

Whether you have fuel to taxi is a moot point, once you are cutting into final/fixed reserve prior to completing the landing you have busted the law and in emergency territory. If the engines stop due to fuel exhaustion just after vacating the runway it's obvious that you did not have 30 minutes airborne, or any sort of reserves remaining.

FFS Do you expect him to park the aircraft by the kerb after he ran out if options?
30’ at the end of the landing roll is the rule, but what if you can’t?

[43Inches]

FFS Do you expect him to park the aircraft by the kerb after he ran out if options?
30’ at the end of the landing roll is the rule, but what if you can’t?

I think you missed the point, once you have cut into your required fixed reserve prior to completing the landing you have busted 'the not enough fuel for flight' rule and can be charged as such. If you ran out of fuel and the engines stopped just after vacating the runway, it would make it very easy to prove you did not have the required fuel on board at touch down. Once you are cutting into that fixed reserve and it's reported, you then have to then justify why you were in that position and have a suitable excuse or you can be charged/fined as such. My point was that anyone who lands with the regulatory required fuel at touchdown will have ample fuel to taxi to the gate, so it's not really a consideration.

[BuzzBox]

Isn't that the reason as to why that GA 737 in Yogyakarta crashed? The Captain was in such a rush to use as little fuel as possible in order to gain a bonus?

There was speculation to that effect in the media, but when interviewed by the NTSC, the PIC claimed “his decision to continue to land the aircraft was not in any way influenced by that incentive program”. Nevertheless, the NTSC final report recommended that “Garuda Indonesia review its fuel conservation incentive program policy to ensure that flight crews are in no doubt about its intent, and that there is no perception that such a policy could compromise the safe operation of aircraft.”

https://knkt.go.id/Repo/Files/Laporan/Penerbangan/2007/PK-GZC%20Final%20Report.pdf

[A320 Flyer]

Let me make it easier and perhaps I could have explained this better. BL. Pretty much JQ though. Still calling this bull****e Global Aviator?

never saw anything of the like when I was at JPA. Who would care up there. Burn plus 5 in CAVOK was the standard

[Zipper1]

So does SQ just autoland everywhere?

edit: FO with 2900 hours TT and 2900 on type. Probably never performed a visual approach in their career.

Not their fault. And if this was a crash management would probably use this to reinforce automation.If I read that right, that's like saying they encourage overuse of automation, develop a lack of skill from doing this, mess up: Then authorities push for more automation. If it didn't have the potential to cause a lot of problems, it would almost be funny (of course it's not).

[Beer Baron]

I find it amusing seeing some posters desperately trying to sling mud at QF with misplaced equivalencies to this incident. God knows why, as the SQ incident has nothing at all to do with QF.

One poster, drawing on a decade old incident in Munich, stated there was ‘un-forecast fog’.
Another mentions Mildura, where once again there was un-forecast fog.

In the incident at hand the report clearly states, right at the start: Prior to departure, the flight crew reviewed the documents provided by the flight dispatcher. The Terminal Aerodrome Forecast2 (TAF) for Changi Airport indicated that there could be temporary light to moderate thunderstorms with rain in the vicinity of Changi Airport for periods of 30 minutes or more but less than 60 minutes.
So there were TEMPO thunder storms forecast for their arrival. It wasn’t a surprise. But they chose not to take 60 mins holding fuel. I don’t care what your fuel policy says is legal, that’s just stupid.
Before you argue they had diversion fuel, so don’t need an alternate, recall that Batam is 15Nm away from SIN. It is your base turn. You can’t be surprised that storms in SIN also lead to storms in Batam.

This is a pretty disturbing incident and people trying to deflect attention onto historical QF incidents clearly have either severe anti-QF issues or simply don’t understand what a dangerous situation these SQ passengers were in.

[Dora-9]

AQIS:
I just can’t imagine that all three airports had crap weather.
Respectfully, there's something missing from your imagination. I've seen this situation - a thunderstorm covering all the Singapore airfields AND JB - on several occasions. Inevitably, Batam was clear, but my company wouldn't use it as an alternate.

[43Inches]

I find it amusing seeing some posters desperately trying to sling mud at QF with misplaced equivalencies to this incident. God knows why, as the SQ incident has nothing at all to do with QF.

One poster, drawing on a decade old incident in Munich, stated there was ‘un-forecast fog’.
Another mentions Mildura, where once again there was un-forecast fog.

In the incident at hand the report clearly states, right at the start:
So there were TEMPO thunder storms forecast for their arrival. It wasn’t a surprise. But they chose not to take 60 mins holding fuel. I don’t care what your fuel policy says is legal, that’s just stupid.
Before you argue they had diversion fuel, so don’t need an alternate, recall that Batam is 15Nm away from SIN. It is your base turn. You can’t be surprised that storms in SIN also lead to storms in Batam.

This is a pretty disturbing incident and people trying to deflect attention onto historical QF incidents clearly have either severe anti-QF issues or simply don’t understand what a dangerous situation these SQ passengers were in.

No doubt its a disturbing incident. However the link to the Mildura incident was not whether the crew were caught out by weather, but more so that like what is being insinuated about SQ, QF apoears to have not complied fully with the investigation. The crew busted a minima when the fuel state probably did not require them to, they did not declare a mayday when intending to perform an emergency landing below minima, therefore no services were in attendence. After the landing the crew refueled and departed, which conveniantly deleted the cvr data, after such an event the crew should have been stood down. QF appears to have provided no FDR information or even actual fuel data. The ATSB used calculated data and fuel uplifts from third parties to work out roughly how much fuel the QF aircraft had. The crew knew about the TEMPO, claimed they had holding fuel for it, then landed immediately claiming they had 'low fuel'. That whole event is just as disturbing, and leaves you wondering how many other times are minimas busted by this company and nobody finds out.

[dr dre]

No doubt its a disturbing incident. However the link to the Mildura incident was not whether the crew were caught out by weather, but more so that like what is being insinuated about SQ, QF apoears to have not complied fully with the investigation. The crew busted a minima when the fuel state probably did not require them to, they did not declare a mayday when intending to perform an emergency landing below minima, therefore no services were in attendence. After the landing the crew refueled and departed, which conveniantly deleted the cvr data, after such an event the crew should have been stood down. QF appears to have provided no FDR information or even actual fuel data. The ATSB used calculated data and fuel uplifts from third parties to work out roughly how much fuel the QF aircraft had. The crew knew about the TEMPO, claimed they had holding fuel for it, then landed immediately claiming they had 'low fuel'. That whole event is just as disturbing, and leaves you wondering how many other times are minimas busted by this company and nobody finds out.

It was VA that landed below minima in YMIA, not QF.

[Chronic Snoozer]

It was VA that landed below minima in YMIA, not QF.

Was it?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-100 (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2016/two-boeing-737s-land-below-minima)

[43Inches]

It was VA that landed below minima in YMIA, not QF.

I suggest you read the actual report, QF planned to land below minima, adjusted to a 'new minima' 200 ft below the actual, continued below that and became visual at less than 200 ft AGL then quoted cloud base of 150ft AGL to other aircraft. The VA aircraft used the 150ft guide for the first approach, did not get visual, went around, but did see the runway below them in the missed approach and then declared the fuel emergency as they were now fuel critical. I know people on the ground who witnessed the whole event, QF landed in very poor conditions, possibly much worse than if they had held for a while. The SPECI at the time the QF landed was cloud OVC at 100 ft and 900m vis, which matches what I've been told.

[Beer Baron]

I know people on the ground who witnessed the whole event, QF landed in very poor conditions, possibly much worse than if they had held for a while.
That is not supported by the facts in the ATSB report. Here are some excerpts:At 0946 the crew of Qantas 735 broadcast that they had landed at Mildura.

The first SPECI indicating the presence of fog was issued at 0948, showing visibility as 900 m in fog and cloud overcast at 100 ft.

Subsequent SPECIs show that the visibility at Mildura reached a low of 200 m in fog at 1011.

The first SPECI showing no fog, but with mist and overcast cloud at 100 ft being issued at 1048.
So conditions deteriorated after QF landed, they did not improved. The first SPECI which didn’t have FG on it was issues over an hour after they landed. Holding would not have improved their ability to get in, as indeed was proven by the difficulty that VA experienced shortly afterward.

Again, there is no real equivalency to the SQ incident. After being confronted with unforcast fog in ADL both VA and QF were confronted with unforcast fog in MIA. The TEMPO was only for BKN 600’. So again the forecast was wrong and conditions much worse than advertised.

VA also made an approach below minima prior to declaring a mayday but you don’t criticise them, only Qantas. Rather than analyse this serious SQ incident you only seem interested in taking pot shots at QF over an unrelated historical incident.

[MickG0105]

I suggest you read the actual report, ...
Always sage advice.

... , QF planned to land below minima, adjusted to a 'new minima' 200 ft below the actual, continued below that and became visual at less than 200 ft AGL then quoted cloud base of 150ft AGL to other aircraft. ...

...

At 0937 the crew of Qantas 735 contacted the crew of Velocity 1384 to discuss the arrival and the crew of Velocity 1384 stated that they were tracking to the initial waypoint to commence the RNAV GNSS approach to runway 27. At 0939 the crew of a Qantaslink Bombardier DHC-8 aircraft (Dash-8) broadcast to traffic at Mildura that they were conducting a go-around. The crew of Velocity 1384 asked for an appreciation of the weather and were told by the Dash-8 crew that at the minima, they ‘couldn’t see anything’.

At 0940 the crew of Qantas 735 contacted Velocity 1384 to advise that they were commencing the RNAV GNSS approach ‘due fuel’. The Velocity 1384 FO replied that they were ‘in the same boat’ but, after discussion between the captain and FO of Velocity 1384, they elected to hold and allow Qantas 735 to continue with the approach. This decision was passed to the crew of Qantas 735. The crew of Qantas 735 applied a revised minimum to the approach that was 200 ft lower than that published. This was based on the knowledge that the cloud base would preclude becoming visual via a normal approach. The crew reported that as they descended toward the revised minimum, the extent of the cloud reduced and they gained sufficient visual reference of the runway environment to continue the approach. At 0946 the crew of Qantas 735 broadcast that they had landed at Mildura. The aircraft landed on runway 27 with the required fuel reserves intact and the crew reported that the runway was visible once they descended below the cloud.

​​​​​​...

... The VA aircraft used the 150ft guide for the first approach, did not get visual, went around, but did see the runway below them in the missed approach and then declared the fuel emergency as they were now fuel critical. ...

...
​​​​​​​At 0950, Velocity 1384 sought an update on the weather from Qantas 735, who stated that the fog had appeared to be getting thicker but was now clearing, although the cloud was still below minima.

At 0952, Velocity 1384 updated ATC that they were still holding due to the low cloud at Mildura. ATC asked them to nominate a latest divert time to proceed to a suitable airport. The FO replied that they did not have the fuel to proceed anywhere else. After obtaining further information from the crew, ATC initiated an alert phase and at 0958, after contacting the crew again, ATC activated the Mildura Airport emergency procedures.

At 0954, the controller made another ‘all stations’ broadcast with the latest TAF issued for Mildura, valid from 1000. This forecast predicted:
• visibility as 3 km in mist
• scattered cloud at 300 ft AGL
• an improvement in both visibility and cloud base in the hour from 1000
• a 30 per cent probability of the visibility reducing to 500 m in fog for the period between 1000 and 1200.

Given their available fuel, the crew of Velocity 1384 determined that they needed to commence an approach just after 1000 to allow for a second approach if needed. They discussed the conduct of a ‘sighting’ approach to ensure the aircraft was aligned with the runway from the RNAV GNSS approach. The captain was still the pilot flying; however, they briefed that if at any time during the approach the FO sighted the runway, then the FO was to take control and land. 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.

At 1014, Velocity 1384 landed at Mildura in foggy conditions with fuel below the required reserves. As they taxied in, the captain told the cabin crew to stand down and normal arrival procedures resumed.

I can't find any reference to the VA flight actually declaring a fuel emergency. They had previously advised ATC that they would likely need to do so at around 1003.
​​​​​​​
​​​​​​​

[43Inches]

That is not supported by the facts in the ATSB report. Here are some excerpts:
So conditions deteriorated after QF landed, they did not improved. The first SPECI which didn’t have FG on it was issues over an hour after they landed. Holding would not have improved their ability to get in, as indeed was proven by the difficulty that VA experienced shortly afterward.

Again, there is no real equivalency to the SQ incident. After being confronted with unforcast fog in ADL both VA and QF were confronted with unforcast fog in MIA. The TEMPO was only for BKN 600’. So again the forecast was wrong and conditions much worse than advertised.

VA also made an approach below minima prior to declaring a mayday but you don’t criticise them, only Qantas. Rather than analyse this serious SQ incident you only seem interested in taking pot shots at QF over an unrelated historical incident.

I'm not criticizing VA because they did everything right by the book and did not try to cover it up, the VA crew were dealing with an abnormal fuel problem on top of a low fuel situation, they rightfully declared an emergency when faced with a below minima landing and requested services. VA complied completely with the ATSB providing CVR, FDR and helped with the investigation. It's obvious from the ATSB wording that QF was avoiding the investigation and would not provide actual fuel logs and such, these had to be sourced from third parties. As I said, I know people on the ground who witnessed the event, QF landed in possibly the worst conditions of the day. The QF crew even stated that conditions were improving to other aircraft after their landing. The conditions were supposed to be TEMPO, yes below what was expected, but that means you hold for an hour and it improves, the QF crew stated they had calculated that they had the fuel required for 1 hour holding.

So what happened is a QF crew busted a minima by significant margin, while they still had significant fuel to hold or conduct a missed approach and try a second attempt. I can not see how that is compliant with CAR 257. The VA aircraft waited for QF, and when their fuel was at minimum attempted an approach. QF then has done everything to cover up what the crew did here, including letting them depart when they were involved in a serious incident, ie knowingly busting a minima.

The crew reported that as they descended toward the revised minimum, the extent of the cloud reduced and they gained sufficient visual reference of the runway environment to continue the approach

They had not seen the runway, just the roads in the undershoot, which is not what constitutes visual for continuation of a SI approach.

the crew reported that the runway was visible once they descended below the cloud.

Cloud height was 150ft AGL in their own words, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to put two and two together with the statements " we saw the runway when clear of cloud" and they advised other aircraft that the cloud height was around 150 ft AGL.

At 0948 the crew of the Dash-8 asked Qantas 735 for their assessment of the weather. The crew replied that the cloud base was at 150 ft AGL and that they had landed off the approach ‘due fuel’. At this time, a SPECI was issued for Mildura, showing visibility was now 900 m in fog and that the cloud was overcast at 100 ft AGL.


That time is only 2 minutes after QF landed. Also the SPECI at 0932 before the attempt was OVC 200 ft and 2000m vis. So well below the minima and considering the minima is 393 AGL with actual QNH then the revised minima would then be 193AGL. That being said, revising your minima down is still an emergency procedure, so it does not mean the QF crew are absolved of any wrong doing. It was an NPA approach so an MDA, which means you are not allowed to go below such altitude, even in conducting the missed approach.

PS I'm not interested in perpetuating this topic, just responding to who is.

[Chronic Snoozer]

PS I'm not interested in perpetuating this topic, just responding to who is.

As for SQ is any more dangerous that any other airline in the region, I think something happened in Bangkok a few years back to a local airline, the Rome incident, Munich incident, Perth incident, Mildura etc etc etc.

You were the first poster to raise it 8 posts in.

[43Inches]

You were the first poster to raise it 8 posts in.

True dat, but that was just in response to SQ being the only airline that covers up events, not in regard to the flight crews actions. I do agree entirely the SQ event sounds like an almighty circus, and they have done similar in the past. But that has been covered to death by many other posters. My point is that airlines closer to home also tend to sweep things under the carpet, and in the not too distant past.

[Chronic Snoozer]

What are you talking about? This report is published and freely available to you and I by clicking on the link to the government website. Straw, meet man. If you want to go to town on QF or VA, start another thread called - "I Really Hate How These Airlines Cover Everything Up, And Here Is Why".

[Beer Baron]

The VA aircraft used the 150ft guide for the first approach, did not get visual, went around, and then declared the fuel emergency as they were now fuel critical.

I'm not criticizing VA because they did everything right by the book and did not try to cover it up,… they rightfully declared an emergency when faced with a below minima landing and requested services.

So what happened is a QF crew busted a minima by significant margin, while they still had significant fuel to hold or conduct a missed approach and try a second attempt. I can not see how that is compliant with CAR 257.
You contradict yourself. By your own assertion, VA made an approach below the minima prior to declaring a fuel emergency. The exact thing you are criticising QF for doing. They descended to the same height (150’) but did not get visual. If they had got visual at 150’ clearly they would have landed, just as QF did, but you criticise QF while saying VA ‘did everything right by the book’.

That makes no sense and shows your bias.

[43Inches]

What are you talking about? This report is published and freely available to you and I by clicking on the link to the government website. Straw, meet man. If you want to go to town on QF or VA, start another thread called - "I Really Hate How These Airlines Cover Everything Up, And Here Is Why".

Have you actually read the first 10 posts of this thread? There's a lot of banter about whether the report was 'accurate' from the SQ government. The very first post insinuates that there was some form of arse covering.

[das Uber Soldat]

The uber Clown.
You called? :}

[43Inches]

You contradict yourself. By your own assertion, VA made an approach below the minima prior to declaring a fuel emergency. The exact thing you are criticising QF for doing. They descended to the same height (150’) but did not get visual. If they had got visual at 150’ clearly they would have landed, just as QF did, but you criticise QF while saying VA ‘did everything right by the book’.

That makes no sense and shows your bias.

You are cherry picking comments when the overall discussion is that the QF flight was not overly scrutinized. Despite some clangers in the mix, like they had at least (possibly much more) the fuel to still return to ADL at 0955 (if they had held at altitude), 9 minutes after they had landed at MIA. Which meant when they landed they still would have had significant fuel to hold. QF withheld the actual fuel amounts, for reasons we can only surmise that they were worried that it's probable the jet had the fuel to go elsewhere, or hold significantly, but chose to land immediately. If the jet did have fuel to hold significantly or divert, then that changes the whole legality in regards to CAR 257 and landing below minima due stress of weather. The QF aircraft kept on referring to a 'low fuel' state, but not declaring that they had an issue. I mean I'm happy to be proven wrong if QF was open with the actual Fuel on Board at the time of landing, but it seems the ATSB was left to calculate this from third party data based on the minimum fuel to be uplifted for the flight. The Captain was said to routinely uplift more than minimums, and they stated that they had 60 minutes holding for Mildura when the diversion was assessed. The ATSB assessment of the minimum fuel situation said they had 10 minutes shy of that requirement, but based on a calculation not based on actuals. Now are we really saying that QF 'lost' the actual fuel figures, or did they refuse to provide them, or was the ATSB hiding them, who knows.

[Beer Baron]

I have no idea why you repeatedly refer to their ability to return to ADL. ADL still had fog, either destination would require busting a minima.
From the report: Subsequent TTFs were issued for Adelaide, each extending the predicted time for the fog to clear. The first TTF with no fog present was issued at 1230.
So ADL still had fog 2 and a half hours after they landed in MIA. There was no port they could divert to or hold until it was have been above minima.

As to suggesting they breached CAR 257, again this is addressed in the report:​​​​​​​The flight crews of Velocity 1384 and Qantas 735 had insufficient fuel to divert to another airport once they arrived at Mildura. Given the meteorological conditions were less than the landing minima for a Boeing 737, this constituted an emergency. As such, both crews were able to land under the provisions of CAR 257(5).
If you disagree with their interpretation of the law take it up with the ATSB, but don’t try to slander the crew and airline.

[43Inches]

You are completely missing the point with blind faith in your masters. The crew had fuel to hold, there is no doubt, the fact they had fuel to return to ADL, with reserves intact, at a time after they had landed proves this, but they elected to land immediately by busting a minima. They had even discussed the possibility of an autoland from the ILS in ADL prior to descent. The ATSB went softly as they quoted CAR 257 as the out clause, so I can commit myself to an aerodrome and despite having significant fuel to hold I can just claim I busted minima and landed because I would run out of fuel some point later on. But I wont disclose how much fuel I had on board because it might mean I could have held until conditions improved.

And the point is not that they landed immediately, but they knowingly busted the minima in doing so. And then afterwards either did not report this, or were allowed to depart on the next sector. That in itself reflects badly on the operator. Maybe I should release some of the anecdotal evidence as well, that I was told on the day, but that might not go down well either.

BTW I have absolutely no problem in how the crew/operators acted in how they got to Mildura and became committed, the problem is what happened afterwards.

If you disagree with their interpretation of the law take it up with the ATSB, but don’t try to slander the crew and airline.

Yet half this thread is slandering another crew and airline. I'm just being the devils advocate and showing everyone does this, Australia has just been very lucky that the incidents did not convert into accidents. No one likes it when the focus is on their hen house.

PS I haven't even brought up the fact that they were given the fog update for ADL just after departing Sydney and calculated only scraping into ADL with the Fuel on board relying on Fog to lift on 'schedule'. Because we all know fog follows schedules and the forecasters have always got it right. So in this case like the SQ case the crew should have known better. Should we pick at the scab more or leave it there?

[BuzzBox]

Interrupting the QF/VA slanging match for just a moment:

In the incident at hand the report clearly states, right at the start:
So there were TEMPO thunder storms forecast for their arrival. It wasn’t a surprise. But they chose not to take 60 mins holding fuel. I don’t care what your fuel policy says is legal, that’s just stupid.
Before you argue they had diversion fuel, so don’t need an alternate, recall that Batam is 15Nm away from SIN. It is your base turn. You can’t be surprised that storms in SIN also lead to storms in Batam.

The report also states, right at the start:
The planned alternate destination airports were Paya Lebar Air Base in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur International Airport and Senai International Airport in the state of Johor in Malaysia.

So Batam was not the planned alternate. Granted, Senai (Johor Bahru) is not much further away than Batam, but the Senai TAF the crew probably used before departure showed, at worst, TEMPO 5000 TSRA for the period Senai might have been needed. The earlier TAF didn't forecast any thunderstorms at Senai until much later.

Approaching SIN, the FMC estimated the aircraft would land with 7,000 kg, ie FRF plus about 4,000 kg (approx 40 minutes), so the crew did have the option to hold for a short time and then divert, or to throw away the alternate and hold for longer. In my view, and having operated in that region for close to 30 years, bunging on an extra 60 minutes would have been overkill, given that none of the forecasts indicated the weather would be as bad as eventuated. Putting on that much extra fuel is especially inefficient for an ULH flight, where you'd have to put on a whole bunch extra just to carry the extra 60 minutes to destination.

My opinion is the crew erred by trying to hold at SAMKO for too long, especially having already advised ATC they could only perform one hold. As stated in the report, if they'd diverted to Batam immediately after that first hold, they very likely would have landed while the weather was still ok.

Now, back to regular viewing...

[43Inches]

And gets back to my original argument, there are lots of factors that means this crew made one simple error and that was not to divert early enough. We all make mistakes. Like Mildura a series of events put this aircraft in a low fuel event, the result is the crew landed safely. They had the pre-flight fuel requirements. There's no government conspiracy or much evident cover up or hush hush by the media, it's just what it is. Every airline keeps things under lids until it's exposed, either by a regulatory investigation or by the media. If the media does not get wind of it early on it becomes less of a news story. If it's caught on the day it spreads like wildfire, sensational events, otherwise somebody monitoring the reports caught wind of this and published a 'this happened' report.

[Beer Baron]

Approaching SIN, the FMC estimated the aircraft would land with 7,000 kg, ie FRF plus about 4,000 kg (approx 40 minutes), so the crew did have the option to hold for a short time and then divert, or to throw away the alternate and hold for longer. In my view, and having operated in that region for close to 30 years, bunging on an extra 60 minutes would have been overkill, given that none of the forecasts indicated the weather would be as bad as eventuated. Putting on that much extra fuel is especially inefficient for an ULH flight, where you'd have to put on a whole bunch extra just to carry the extra 60 minutes to destination.

My opinion is the crew erred by trying to hold at SAMKO for too long, especially having already advised ATC they could only perform one hold. As stated in the report, if they'd diverted to Batam immediately after that first hold, they very likely would have landed while the weather was still ok.
Fair enough if that’s your opinion BuzzBox, but I believe the situation would likely have been better handled if they had more fuel.

LHR-SIN isn’t really ULH, that normally over 16 hours. LHR-SIN is more like 13 hours. Very easy range for a 773ER. I’d be very surprised if the weren’t able to put a few more tonnes of gas on to cover the TEMPO periods. Cost to carry is probably less than 500kg/tonne, so pretty cheap insurance.

The report reads as if they were in a major rush to land in Batam and that lead to errors on the approaches.

Would you be hand flying an ILS intercept in IMC at 1195’ if you had enough fuel for a leisurely 10mile final? The next approach had them again offset from the LOC and G/S leading to a GPWS and go-around 200’ off the deck. If they had more fuel, hence more time, I’m sure they could have completed the approach in a more stable manner.
1.5T of gas seems a small price to pay to avoid that scenario.

[VHOED191006]

Fair enough if that’s your opinion BuzzBox, but I believe the situation would likely have been better handled if they had more fuel.

LHR-SIN isn’t really ULH, that normally over 16 hours. LHR-SIN is more like 13 hours. Very easy range for a 773ER. I’d be very surprised if the weren’t able to put a few more tonnes of gas on to cover the TEMPO periods. Cost to carry is probably less than 500kg/tonne, so pretty cheap insurance.

The report reads as if they were in a major rush to land in Batam and that lead to errors on the approaches.

Would you be hand flying an ILS intercept in IMC at 1195’ if you had enough fuel for a leisurely 10mile final? The next approach had them again offset from the LOC and G/S leading to a GPWS and go-around 200’ off the deck. If they had more fuel, hence more time, I’m sure they could have completed the approach in a more stable manner.
1.5T of gas seems a small price to pay to avoid that scenario.
But here's the thing, they would have had enough fuel to properly execute the approach if they went to Batam straight away. However, they used all of it up by lumbering around in the hold. What the report should have looked into is why it them took so long to get approval. The crew should have taken charge of the situation and gone ahead and shoot an approach for Batam just before reaching minimum fuel (at the very least) as it was becoming clear that the approval needed to divert was never going to come.

[BuzzBox]

What the report should have looked into is why it them took so long to get approval.

The diversion coordination is discussed in Section 1.10.1 of the report (pp.20-22). The aircraft had not declared it was in a "Mayday Fuel" situation at the time diversion coordination was initiated. Consequently, the coordination procedures were based on the normal movement of an arriving aircraft in a non-emergency situation, which can take 10-20 minutes. When the aircraft did eventually declare "Mayday Fuel", the diversion was immediately accepted and the aircraft given priority to land ahead of all other arrivals into Batam.

[BuzzBox]

1.5T of gas seems a small price to pay to avoid that scenario.

Would extra fuel have made any difference to the outcome? We’ll never know, but it seems the crew was intent on holding as long as possible in the hope they’d land in Singapore. Extra fuel might only have prolonged that exercise, with the same result.

The key was knowing when to bug out with the fuel they had available.

[Dora-9]

Beer Baron:

I’d be very surprised if the weren’t able to put a few more tonnes of gas on to cover the TEMPO periods.

Have you spoken to anyone who flies for SQ about this? I've not flown for this airline, but from friends who have (admittedly we're talking about a decade ago), taking extra fuel was, how shall we put it, very firmly discouraged.

[C441]

One of the Finnair operated Qantas flights diverted into Batam in the last few days after some holding inbound to Singapore?

I've no idea what the weather was or if it was even weather related, however it was nearly always a sector to throw on additional fuel for holding to prevent diversions and the subsequent knock-on impacts if the two crew ran out of hours. Not sure if Finnair are doing this with 2 pilots or 3.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1334x924/image_15_11_2023_at_4_27_pm_efa8cbe72cf06405bffd1421c80f86b9 d6c6fb06.jpg

[TBM-Legend]

The F28 became dangerously low on fuel and after circling for some time Captain Harold Rowell considered ditching the aircraft in the ocean. However, he eventually landed the jet on a gravel runway in the isolated town of Fitzroy Crossing, landing with less than ten minutes of fuel remaining.

[framer]

once you have cut into your required fixed reserve prior to completing the landing you have busted 'the not enough fuel for flight' rule and can be charged as such. If you ran out of fuel and the engines stopped just after vacating the runway, it would make it very easy to prove you did not have the required fuel on board at touch down. Once you are cutting into that fixed reserve and it's reported, you then have to then justify why you were in that position and have a suitable excuse or you can be charged/fined as such
As an Australian who has lived overseas for many years I wonder if we, as Australians, recognise that the thinking demonstrated in the quote above is uniquely Australian. All countries where I have worked the idea of being charged or justifying something in court is irrelevant and doesn’t get a mention. Even the mention of things being ‘strict liability’ seems very strange after being away for a while.

[FINN82]

One of the Finnair operated Qantas flights diverted into Batam in the last few days after some holding inbound to Singapore?

I've no idea what the weather was or if it was even weather related, however it was nearly always a sector to throw on additional fuel for holding to prevent diversions and the subsequent knock-on impacts if the two crew ran out of hours. Not sure if Finnair are doing this with 2 pilots or 3.


I was on that flight. It was an interesting experience.

The departure from Sydney was originally delayed because the plane was pushed away from the gate and brought back to another gate only at the original departure time. This delayed departure by about an hour. The approach seemed completely normal and we were holding pattern for only 10-15 minutes before the captain announced divert to Batam.

There had been a storm in Singapore earlier, which congested traffic. However, the other planes landed normally.

We were in Batam for three hours. First we were told that refueling would take about an hour, but the first fueling truck didn't reach the wing, so we had to wait for a bigger one. Refueling was completed in 2 hours. Then we waited for the pushback to start, but the captain's announcement came that the pushback tracktor has broken. That's when I lost hope that we would make it to our connecting flight to Helsinki. We were informed that we had to wait for a spare part for the tractor, but fortunately the broken one got out of the way, so the pushback was successful with the new tractor. Then we had to wait for clearance for approx. 10-15 minutes (a lot of stamps and money for the ground staff, the captain announced).

Fortunately, we made it to the connecting flight to Helsinki. The previously successful upgrade to Business was indeed more valuable than I previously thought.

There were three pilots on the flight and I even exchanged a few words with the captain when we were waiting for gate information in Sydney. The captain kept us informed about the situation and everything seemed to be handled very professionally! Safety first.

It would be interesting to hear from the professionals if we originally had a little too little fuel with us and what kind of decision-making process was behind the divert.

[Mr Mossberg]

Mate, the majority of Australians are acutely ignorant of how controlled they are. It's not a country that appreciates the true meaning of freedom of anything.

[Topher1976]

Ken did you know that Qantas landed at Munich in a 747 below fixed reserve minimum because there were unforecast storms at Frankfurt? Does that disturb you or is it only when Asian carriers do it that your airmanship sensibilities are outraged.

Exactly my thought. It’s not an isolated incident and happens at times. They declared mayday fuel and landed as soon as they could. Pilots can’t control weather conditions no matter where they are from.

[punkalouver]

(13) We Must Land NOW!! The Incredible Story of Singapore Airlines Flight 319 - YouTube

Video report of the incident.

[B772]

Ansett landed a DC9 in Groote Eylandt in mid-1980 with almost no fuel - not enough for another circuit.

It was a Cairns - Gove flight with a reasonable amount of fuel but not enough for a couple of go-rounds off the non runway aligned VOR approach in Gove and a diversion to Darwin. Groote was not an approved DC-9 airport and the jet remained at the eastern end of the runway for a couple of days before being very carefully turned around and taxied to the apron.

Imagine the media (social and other) coverage that would get today.
Are you sure of your facts C441. My understanding was the a/c was refuelled at GTE and returned to GOV and then continued to DRW - PHE - PER. The next time I see Graham Stewart I will ask him if the a/c sat at the end of the runway for a couple of days.

[C441]

Are you sure of your facts C441. My understanding was the a/c was refuelled at GTE and returned to GOV and then continued to DRW - PHE - PER. The next time I see Graham Stewart I will ask him if the a/c sat at the end of the runway for a couple of days.
I’m very sure of my facts. I was based at Groote Eylandt at the time and was in the circuit on downwind for runway 28. I was politely requested by the Ansett crew to let them land first and was happy to comply. At the time I was surprised to see a DC9 in the circuit (well left base & final onto 10 for them) and was unaware of their fuel state but very aware that they insisted on landing asap. As I understood it, the issue on the runway was whether they had enough bitumen to turn a 9 around on the runway.
Like a good GA pilot, once the novelty had worn off, I was mainly interested in how I could get in and out with a parked DC9 on the 28 threshold.
Although it’s now almost 44 years ago I do recall it departed Groote empty & went straight to Darwin a couple of days later.

[framer]

Thanks 441, I enjoyed your telling of that story. I was also based on Groote but a decade or so later.