Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Another disaster averted

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 09:26
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,796
Received 425 Likes on 233 Posts
Originally Posted by hawk_eye
Haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere in the Aus and NZ forum ….but speaking of close calls:

https://australianaviation.com.au/20...bourne-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.
43Inches is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 10:13
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: England
Posts: 542
Received 249 Likes on 129 Posts
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.
DogTailRed2 is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 10:21
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: I would tell you, but my GPS keeps getting jammed
Posts: 169
Received 49 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
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?
VHOED191006 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 10:23
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Posts: 1,222
Received 123 Likes on 62 Posts
Originally Posted by munnst
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 - The South American BAe146 a few years back. 71 killed.
Tuninter Flight 1153 - The ATR72 with the 42 fuel gauges fitted. 16 killed.
ALM980 - A DC-9 that ditched after running out of fuel following several approach attempts. 23 killed.
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - That hijacked 767. 125 killed.
United 173 - A DC-8 that ran out of fuel troubleshooting a gear indication. 10 killed.
Varig Flight 254 - Navigation fault led to fuel exhaustion over the Amazon. 12 killed.

Annnnd

Avianca 52. The 707 that ran out of fuel in NY. 73 killed. Thanks, CS.

Last edited by KRviator; 3rd Oct 2023 at 11:34. Reason: Added Avianca 52.
KRviator is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 10:26
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: I would tell you, but my GPS keeps getting jammed
Posts: 169
Received 49 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by munnst
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?
VHOED191006 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 10:36
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,302
Received 335 Likes on 128 Posts
Originally Posted by KRviator
A short list from a few I can recall, aided by Google...More if you dig deeper or go back further...
LaMia Flight 2933 - The South American BAe146 a few years back. 71 killed.
Tuninter Flight 1153 - The ATR72 with the 42 fuel gauges fitted. 16 killed.
ALM980 - A DC-9 that ditched after running out of fuel following several approach attempts. 23 killed.
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - That hijacked 767. 125 killed.
United 173 - A DC-8 that ran out of fuel troubleshooting a gear indication. 10 killed.
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?
Chronic Snoozer is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 11:16
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,256
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
​​​​​​​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.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 11:32
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Posts: 1,222
Received 123 Likes on 62 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
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..
KRviator is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by KRviator:
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 12:30
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 951
Received 18 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by munnst
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...

old,not bold is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 12:46
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Utopia
Posts: 846
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
Clown. Focus on the OP. I know it´s a hard banana to swallow, but try and focus. No need to get emotional mate.
Klimax is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 13:10
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 66
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
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?
Sailvi767 is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 16:31
  #32 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,884
Received 157 Likes on 50 Posts
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.
SOPS is online now  
The following 3 users liked this post by SOPS:
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 18:02
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Utopia
Posts: 846
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
Klimax is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 19:12
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Yes
Posts: 189
Received 27 Likes on 16 Posts
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".

Last edited by RichardJones; 3rd Oct 2023 at 19:47.
RichardJones is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 19:18
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 252
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quantas stopped flying to Frankfurt about 10 years ago, if I‘m not mistaken. If correct, where‘s the comparison then?
EDMJ is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 19:21
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: nowhere
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 28 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Jester64 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 19:40
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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....utoland.18859/
nose,cabin is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2023, 22:07
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,256
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
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.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2023, 01:28
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 356
Received 115 Likes on 46 Posts
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.
C441 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2023, 01:49
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 83
Received 26 Likes on 11 Posts
13 hour flight from LHR, with the only 2 crew? Possibly fatigue was a factor in their decision making process.
Hollywood1 is offline  
The following users liked this post:


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.