Another disaster averted
short flights long nights
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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
The following 4 users liked this post by twentyelevens:
Originally Posted by VHOED
I doubt there were only 2 crew onboard. There definitely would have been a 3rd in the jumpseat.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 4th Oct 2023 at 03:41. Reason: Post amended. As pointed out by BB below, the was a third, crewing, pilot, a Capt, in the cabin.
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.
And therefore not in the jump seat...
Report: Singapore B773 at Batam on Oct 25th 2022, landed significantly below required final reserve fuel
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."
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."
Gawd. The title of the thread is sarcastic. I suppose I should start using emojis to make even more obvious the bleeding obvious.
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.../aair197101202
That's the damage to VH-TJA after the impact in flight with the tail of the DC-8.
That's the damage to VH-TJA after the impact in flight with the tail of the DC-8.
Last edited by RichardJones; 4th Oct 2023 at 06:12.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
The following 2 users liked this post by morno:
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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 ?
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 ?