|
Originally Posted by hawk_eye
(Post 11513491)
Haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere in the Aus and NZ forum ….but speaking of close calls:
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...bourne-runway/ |
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. |
Originally Posted by 43Inches
(Post 11513508)
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.
|
Originally Posted by munnst
(Post 11513532)
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. 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. :ok: |
Originally Posted by munnst
(Post 11513532)
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. So, one must wonder what on earth was going on? |
Originally Posted by KRviator
(Post 11513537)
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
(Post 11513542)
How could you forget Avianca 052, the trigger for “Mayday” fuel?
|
Originally Posted by munnst
(Post 11513532)
Several airliners have been dead sticked for one reason or another with no loss of life. At least one with zero fuel.
|
Originally Posted by Lookleft
(Post 11513374)
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.
|
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?
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 11513610)
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?
|
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". |
Quantas stopped flying to Frankfurt about 10 years ago, if I‘m not mistaken. If correct, where‘s the comparison then?
|
Originally Posted by SOPS
(Post 11513713)
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. |
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/ |
Clown. Focus on the OP. I know it´s a hard banana to swallow, but try and focus. No need to get emotional mate. 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. Good to know though that my portfolio of rent free accommodation has doubled. |
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. |
13 hour flight from LHR, with the only 2 crew? Possibly fatigue was a factor in their decision making process.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:38. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.