United mayday into YSSY 4thOct
Originally Posted by GordonFR
Talk about complicating things.
Now it’s getting really embarrassing.
• Congested airspace - pigs arse, on a world stage!
• If SYD had STARs that connected to the runways the situational awareness would have been improved. Let’s face it, that was mostly vectoring and every aircraft would have been uncertain of their distance remaining.
• SYD director - where “22 miles to run” could be 15 or 40, sometimes 60. (If I was already minimum fuel, I can understand how the mayday call is needed to tighten things up and get some assurance.)
• I am interested in why the aircraft was continued via the STAR and subsequent downwind leg fuel burn off as opposed to straight to the IAF, 2nm final, runway 25 etc.
• UAL voice seemed quite comfortable, did ATC ask for his endurance? Also curious if the aircraft actually arrived above 30 minutes.
• Shutting down main roads around the airport in this particular case is interesting, next time they should evacuate all the Terminals and surrounding hotels for a bit of sport!
• Congested airspace - pigs arse, on a world stage!
• If SYD had STARs that connected to the runways the situational awareness would have been improved. Let’s face it, that was mostly vectoring and every aircraft would have been uncertain of their distance remaining.
• SYD director - where “22 miles to run” could be 15 or 40, sometimes 60. (If I was already minimum fuel, I can understand how the mayday call is needed to tighten things up and get some assurance.)
• I am interested in why the aircraft was continued via the STAR and subsequent downwind leg fuel burn off as opposed to straight to the IAF, 2nm final, runway 25 etc.
• UAL voice seemed quite comfortable, did ATC ask for his endurance? Also curious if the aircraft actually arrived above 30 minutes.
• Shutting down main roads around the airport in this particular case is interesting, next time they should evacuate all the Terminals and surrounding hotels for a bit of sport!
Last edited by hoss; 5th Oct 2018 at 20:48.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have not read all of this thread , so apologies if already mentioned, this brings back memories of a 707 diverting in Williamtown and unable to taxing off the runway due to fuel exhaustion, very close call
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair199002365/
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair199002365/
Concorde once landed at Heathrow with so little fuel that when it arrived on the stand, the nose was too far up for the aero bridge to be connected. It had to be partially refueled before the passengers could disembark.
• I am interested in why the aircraft was continued via the STAR and subsequent downwind leg fuel burn off as opposed to straight to the IAF, 2nm final, runway 25 etc.
They would have been using Flaps 20 instead of the normal 25 or 30 with the associated extra landing distance required, as per the low fuel checklist and any extra fuel used by doing what they did would be better than a possible go around. Simple Risk mitigation.
….as per the low fuel checklist
Having declared a Mayday I would assume an ASIR has been submitted and thus the details should be known somewhere down the track.
Last edited by C441; 6th Oct 2018 at 03:56.
Absolutely C441
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don’t declare a MAYDAY if you’re not able to meet your company policy requirements. Operators are also required to follow local regulations, which means our AIP. Same goes when Australian aircraft operate to/over other countries, and airlines have plenty of ways to communicate those local differences to crews.
This is from the AIM and doesn't appear in the AIP which I suspect is the reason for the United Mayday and their ability to take the vectors. In Australia you are supposed to divert if you can't take the holding.
If the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, you should declare an emergency due to low fuel and report fuel remaining in minutes.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 6th Oct 2018 at 08:09.
Not necessarily you follow your Ops Manual endorsed by your local authority that CASA then accepts. There would be many things that foreign carriers do that CASA wouldn't necessarily aproved to a VH operator because our rules are different.
This is from the AIM and doesn't appear in the AIP which I suspect is the reason for the United Mayday and their ability to take the vectors. In Australia you are supposed to divert if you can't take the holding.
This is from the AIM and doesn't appear in the AIP which I suspect is the reason for the United Mayday and their ability to take the vectors. In Australia you are supposed to divert if you can't take the holding.
They would have a Part 129 AOC from CASA which says what they can do, where they can land, and what procedures they can fly. It is also conditional on following the Australian rules where required. I didn't hear them report endurance.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey wake up!
they were coming to Sydney.
they had FOB ex the US which complied with the UA fuel Policy
along the way they may or may not have lost fuel behind the flight plan
they get to Sydney and Sydney weather is not the best it could be
ATC imposes on themsome holding which they don’t have the fuel for
they say they can’t accept the holding and ATC says that the only way out is for them to declare a fuel emergency (mayday)
the laconic crew says Ok and declares a mayday
Aussie rules don’t differentiate between a mayday because they can’t accept holding and an I’m about to crash and burn scenario
hence the fireys and the ambos
so they proceed as per almost normal and land without the holding
the media want to know why there wasn’t a crash
ATC wants to know why they have enough fuel to taxy to the gate
Epithaph: It would have been a no drama operation if there was no holding into Sydney at that time.
PS holding into Sydney is advisory not mandatory.
PPS Williamtown would only have been available as an emergency airport ergo there was no emergency except for the holding imposed on the flight
Solution:
option 1 make holding fuel mandatory. Not a desired solution
option 2 have a category for a long distance flight to be able to declare a position where when the flight was airborne they met the legal requirements but the situation changed in flight, holding became a requirement, this could be waived without declaring a full emergency (mayday). The simple result was a removal of the holding requirement without the associated dramas, A practical solution.
they were coming to Sydney.
they had FOB ex the US which complied with the UA fuel Policy
along the way they may or may not have lost fuel behind the flight plan
they get to Sydney and Sydney weather is not the best it could be
ATC imposes on themsome holding which they don’t have the fuel for
they say they can’t accept the holding and ATC says that the only way out is for them to declare a fuel emergency (mayday)
the laconic crew says Ok and declares a mayday
Aussie rules don’t differentiate between a mayday because they can’t accept holding and an I’m about to crash and burn scenario
hence the fireys and the ambos
so they proceed as per almost normal and land without the holding
the media want to know why there wasn’t a crash
ATC wants to know why they have enough fuel to taxy to the gate
Epithaph: It would have been a no drama operation if there was no holding into Sydney at that time.
PS holding into Sydney is advisory not mandatory.
PPS Williamtown would only have been available as an emergency airport ergo there was no emergency except for the holding imposed on the flight
Solution:
option 1 make holding fuel mandatory. Not a desired solution
option 2 have a category for a long distance flight to be able to declare a position where when the flight was airborne they met the legal requirements but the situation changed in flight, holding became a requirement, this could be waived without declaring a full emergency (mayday). The simple result was a removal of the holding requirement without the associated dramas, A practical solution.
Wombat. Excellent post...will never happen as it is too practical 
I have operated from oz to the US and unforecast weather has taken the airport to cat IIIB conditions. In Melbourne one of our few 3B airports the world would have ended, aeroplanes would be holding everywhere, the flow rate would have dropped to a trickle.
in LA, no mention of it other than on the ATIS and we got less dicking around than we usually do.
i cant help thinking that the Australian policy of separation assurance slows things down so much that it becomes an impediment, yes it introduces risk, but appropriately managed that isn’t a problem.
on the upside, the Australian ATIS is MUCH better than the US ones. The American ones read like war and peace and will have the weather at cat 3 minima and still say they are doing visual approaches to runway 6r...go figure.
I have operated from oz to the US and unforecast weather has taken the airport to cat IIIB conditions. In Melbourne one of our few 3B airports the world would have ended, aeroplanes would be holding everywhere, the flow rate would have dropped to a trickle.
in LA, no mention of it other than on the ATIS and we got less dicking around than we usually do.
i cant help thinking that the Australian policy of separation assurance slows things down so much that it becomes an impediment, yes it introduces risk, but appropriately managed that isn’t a problem.
on the upside, the Australian ATIS is MUCH better than the US ones. The American ones read like war and peace and will have the weather at cat 3 minima and still say they are doing visual approaches to runway 6r...go figure.
Compared to all the rubbish they have on the Sydney ATIS about parrellel runway ops, independent departures in progress and don’t pass through the assigned centerline. Is that really necessary on the ATIS or can it just be mentioned in the jepps rather than trying to listen to it?
Compared to all the rubbish they have on the Sydney ATIS
ATIS - 9 - LOS ANGELES - LAX -
- Los Angeles International airport information Romeo, 2250 zulu.
- 220/11 10SM FEW( clouds )022 FEW( clouds )030 055SCT 13/07 A3018.
- Simultaneous ILS approaches in progress to runway 24R and 25L, or vectors for visual approach will be provided.
- Simultaneous visual approaches to all runways are in progress and parallel localizer approaches are in progress between Los Angeles International and Hawthorne airport.
- Simultaneous instrument departures in progress runway 24 and 25.
Notices to Airmen :
- Use caution for two metal plates on taxiway B, between taxiway C5 and taxiway C4.
- Upon received of your ATC clearance, read back only your call sign and transponder code unless you have a question.
- Advise on initial contact you have information Romeo.
….and that's a short one!
Originally Posted by Wombat
option 2 have a category for a long distance flight to be able to declare a position where when the flight was airborne they met the legal requirements but the situation changed in flight, holding became a requirement, this could be waived without declaring a full emergency (mayday). The simple result was a removal of the holding requirement without the associated dramas, A practical solution.
Hey bloggsy, I normally agree with you but not on this one.
we have been coming for 14-15 hrs and the times are available on the cpdlc so it shouldn’t come as a huge shock that we are going to be there at a particular time. If anyone wants to bleat about them being given 2nd place to a long range international stiff ****, the vast majority of traffic is domestic so a few long range internationals isn’t going to screw the system too badly.
that said, get rid of separation assurance and move more traffic and we would all be fine. The 80 am hr cap would then be the biggest drama for Sydney.
we have been coming for 14-15 hrs and the times are available on the cpdlc so it shouldn’t come as a huge shock that we are going to be there at a particular time. If anyone wants to bleat about them being given 2nd place to a long range international stiff ****, the vast majority of traffic is domestic so a few long range internationals isn’t going to screw the system too badly.
that said, get rid of separation assurance and move more traffic and we would all be fine. The 80 am hr cap would then be the biggest drama for Sydney.