EK 380 Diversion to Ottawa and Low Fuel Emergency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Pacific Rim
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK 380 Diversion to Ottawa and Low Fuel Emergency
Emirates A380 (EK 241) to Toronto went around in Toronto due to wind shear and decided to divert to Ottawa.
CYYZ 012000Z 09017G25KT 12SM VCSH OVC007 13/12 A2964 RMK SF8 SLP040
The weather in Toronto has been really bad for the whole day and the approach was made after few holdings on R/W 15R. It went around at short finals due to windshear warning (as told to ATC). After the GA, they requested a R/W 05 approach which was denied by ATC. Then the diversion to Ottawa was declared and was given the radar vectors.
There is a report on another forum that a Mayday was declared due to low fuel but I never heard it. Anyway, It just landed in Ottawa with reportedly 12 fire trucks following.
CYYZ 012000Z 09017G25KT 12SM VCSH OVC007 13/12 A2964 RMK SF8 SLP040
The weather in Toronto has been really bad for the whole day and the approach was made after few holdings on R/W 15R. It went around at short finals due to windshear warning (as told to ATC). After the GA, they requested a R/W 05 approach which was denied by ATC. Then the diversion to Ottawa was declared and was given the radar vectors.
There is a report on another forum that a Mayday was declared due to low fuel but I never heard it. Anyway, It just landed in Ottawa with reportedly 12 fire trucks following.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Pacific Rim
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just posted on the local Ottawa newspaper website:
Giant Airbus A380 set to resume flight to Toronto after emergency landing in Ottawa
Giant Airbus A380 set to resume flight to Toronto after emergency landing in Ottawa
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those aviation brethren whom might not be familiar with fuel policy requirements within other (i.e. non-FAA based) regulatory environments, here are the relevant regulations required within the UAE's Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR-OPS):
If you think you might land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a PAN.
If you know you will land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a MAYDAY.
Nb. 30 minutes of fuel remaining (for a turbine powered aircraft) is defined as 'Final Reserve' fuel.
There is no such terminology, in CAR-OPS, that includes statements such as "fuel emergency" / "low fuel" etc, therein it's either a "PAN" or "MAYDAY" call that must be made, i.e. depending upon how much fuel you think or know you're going to land with.
CAR-OPS 1.375 In-Flight Fuel Management
(a) ....
(b) A commander shall ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made, with final reserve fuel remaining.
(c) The commander shall declare an emergency when the actual usable fuel on board is less than final reserve fuel.
The general principle is that:(a) ....
(b) A commander shall ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made, with final reserve fuel remaining.
(c) The commander shall declare an emergency when the actual usable fuel on board is less than final reserve fuel.
If you think you might land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a PAN.
If you know you will land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a MAYDAY.
Nb. 30 minutes of fuel remaining (for a turbine powered aircraft) is defined as 'Final Reserve' fuel.
There is no such terminology, in CAR-OPS, that includes statements such as "fuel emergency" / "low fuel" etc, therein it's either a "PAN" or "MAYDAY" call that must be made, i.e. depending upon how much fuel you think or know you're going to land with.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Miami
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTTAWA — After making an emergency landing at the Ottawa airport Friday afternoon when it nearly ran out of fuel, an Emirates Airlines Airbus A380 was back in the air heading for Toronto following a two hour delay.
Read more: Giant Airbus A380 resumes flight to Toronto after emergency landing in Ottawa
Now that oil has tanked 20% since their profit announcement; Maybe EK will put enough fuel to NOT declare a mayday in case a go-around and stop sending threatening emails to pilots who load a few extra tons for "wife and baby"
"Commit to destination with known approach time" what bullcrap. One can NEVER without doubt EVER commit to any destination. There is always some possibility; windshear, late aircraft vacating runway etc etc.
Read more: Giant Airbus A380 resumes flight to Toronto after emergency landing in Ottawa
Now that oil has tanked 20% since their profit announcement; Maybe EK will put enough fuel to NOT declare a mayday in case a go-around and stop sending threatening emails to pilots who load a few extra tons for "wife and baby"
"Commit to destination with known approach time" what bullcrap. One can NEVER without doubt EVER commit to any destination. There is always some possibility; windshear, late aircraft vacating runway etc etc.
Last edited by pilotday; 2nd Jun 2012 at 10:05.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotday: Why do I suspect that you wouldn't be happy unless the fuel policy was: "Fill the wings and put the trip fuel in the centre" ?!
It would seem to me that, in this example, the (CAR-OPS) fuel policy, and fuel management & decision making (by the crew) worked admirably and that the outcome (landed safely) was never in doubt... therein the system (procedure, ATC, crew) all seem to have worked as designed... or did I miss something ?!
It would seem to me that, in this example, the (CAR-OPS) fuel policy, and fuel management & decision making (by the crew) worked admirably and that the outcome (landed safely) was never in doubt... therein the system (procedure, ATC, crew) all seem to have worked as designed... or did I miss something ?!
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Miami
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just saying, there should never be any "commit to destination" verbiage in ANY fuel policy because of so many unknowns. What if Ottawa was beyond range, then what? Hamilton? Buffalo? Niagara Falls? Maybe take a gamble for another wind shear event in Toronto?
If it becomes clear you cannot fly to your destination do a go-around, and fly to your alternate with 30 minutes reserve, you divert BEFORE it happens. End of story.
It appears pilot's followed exactly as the company wants them to. let it be clear, I am bashing EK's fuel policy, not the pilots
If it becomes clear you cannot fly to your destination do a go-around, and fly to your alternate with 30 minutes reserve, you divert BEFORE it happens. End of story.
It appears pilot's followed exactly as the company wants them to. let it be clear, I am bashing EK's fuel policy, not the pilots
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blingland
Age: 56
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilotday.
When you know what the heck you are talking about, please come back. The commit to destination is perfecly acceptable policy, makes sense. Read it and grow a pair is my humble suggestion habibi.
I would suggest this had nothing to do with this situation. Looks like a standard, hold for a bit. Make an approach, no that wasn't good. Another runway, no chance sir from ATC. Wx situation crap.
OK lets divert. Getting near the alternate, fuel looks tight. Initially declare a PAN, when it looks like you may land with less than final rsv. Then declare a Mayday if it looks like you will land with less than final rsv. Thats standard fuel policy habibi.
Looks like it worked well. Not an easy day at the office, but job done.
SyB
When you know what the heck you are talking about, please come back. The commit to destination is perfecly acceptable policy, makes sense. Read it and grow a pair is my humble suggestion habibi.
I would suggest this had nothing to do with this situation. Looks like a standard, hold for a bit. Make an approach, no that wasn't good. Another runway, no chance sir from ATC. Wx situation crap.
OK lets divert. Getting near the alternate, fuel looks tight. Initially declare a PAN, when it looks like you may land with less than final rsv. Then declare a Mayday if it looks like you will land with less than final rsv. Thats standard fuel policy habibi.
Looks like it worked well. Not an easy day at the office, but job done.
SyB
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotday: Err, reading between the lines, your logic seems little flawed, i.e. diverting does not make the problem go away and neither does having more fuel; indeed it might make matters worse and / or 'encourage' the pilots to have another go when condition aren't appropriate.
In such instances (of a divert), who's to say that an unforeseen problem doesn't also then occur at ones diversion airport? Having more fuel will not make that problem go away at that location. Ok, it might buy you some more time, but it also might not be enough to take you to another location (and who's to say one won't find a problem there too) ?!
One has no guarantee that, just because one has chosen to divert, that a problem doesn't then arise (in the interim), with and / or at the place one is diverting to and / or when one gets there.
Furthermore, having diverted, one is likely to have arrived at ones diversion airfield with Final Reserve fuel - as that's how the fuel is planned an that's how the game is played - and for which we & ATC understand that these are the rules that we are operating to.
Of course, a competent Captain NEVER paints himself / herself into a corner on fuel, and should always be flexible and knowledgable enough to have a plan 'B' (and 'C') up their sleeve, to deal with the unexpected.
The point is to make a well-judged decision, in advance of having painted oneself into a corner on fuel.
However, if sh!t then happens, one of course needs to make the appropriate call to ATC and request assistance - through a call of either PAN or MAYDAY.
Imho, simply having loads of fuel onboard is not (always) the answer to the problem. It's the decision making that's important, not the amount of fuel that's onboard.
Sheikh Your Bootie - well said !
In such instances (of a divert), who's to say that an unforeseen problem doesn't also then occur at ones diversion airport? Having more fuel will not make that problem go away at that location. Ok, it might buy you some more time, but it also might not be enough to take you to another location (and who's to say one won't find a problem there too) ?!
One has no guarantee that, just because one has chosen to divert, that a problem doesn't then arise (in the interim), with and / or at the place one is diverting to and / or when one gets there.
Furthermore, having diverted, one is likely to have arrived at ones diversion airfield with Final Reserve fuel - as that's how the fuel is planned an that's how the game is played - and for which we & ATC understand that these are the rules that we are operating to.
Of course, a competent Captain NEVER paints himself / herself into a corner on fuel, and should always be flexible and knowledgable enough to have a plan 'B' (and 'C') up their sleeve, to deal with the unexpected.
The point is to make a well-judged decision, in advance of having painted oneself into a corner on fuel.
However, if sh!t then happens, one of course needs to make the appropriate call to ATC and request assistance - through a call of either PAN or MAYDAY.
Imho, simply having loads of fuel onboard is not (always) the answer to the problem. It's the decision making that's important, not the amount of fuel that's onboard.
Sheikh Your Bootie - well said !
Pilotday, If you divert, haven't you just committed to the Alternate? If I commit I am just diverting to the destination.
I like the fuel policy. It tells me the legal min fuel I need, its then up to us to decide if we need extra and how much. I prefer to make that decision and don't want some office wally doing it for me.
The Don
I like the fuel policy. It tells me the legal min fuel I need, its then up to us to decide if we need extra and how much. I prefer to make that decision and don't want some office wally doing it for me.
The Don
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don/SyB
I agree. If we didn't have the 'option' to commit, as was the previous fuel policy, when your fuel reached alternate plus final reserve figure, you'd have no option other than to divert. So, instead of hanging around your destination airfield with a known approach time, you're now burning all your alternate fuel flying to the alternate with no extra fuel other than final reserve. That's 30 minutes. And who's to say that during that time, it all goes pair shaped at the alternate! If it's crappy weather at your destination, then committing may not be an option as the landing can't be 'guaranteed', however, that's for you to decide on the day.
Pilotday, may I suggest you re read the policy and actually understand what it's trying to achieve. It's actually giving you more options rather than less. As long as you land with final reserve intact, you're sweet!
I agree. If we didn't have the 'option' to commit, as was the previous fuel policy, when your fuel reached alternate plus final reserve figure, you'd have no option other than to divert. So, instead of hanging around your destination airfield with a known approach time, you're now burning all your alternate fuel flying to the alternate with no extra fuel other than final reserve. That's 30 minutes. And who's to say that during that time, it all goes pair shaped at the alternate! If it's crappy weather at your destination, then committing may not be an option as the landing can't be 'guaranteed', however, that's for you to decide on the day.
Pilotday, may I suggest you re read the policy and actually understand what it's trying to achieve. It's actually giving you more options rather than less. As long as you land with final reserve intact, you're sweet!
Last edited by BYMONEK; 2nd Jun 2012 at 15:11.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Miami
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think there is some confusion on the point I was trying to make.
You commit to destination, our current fuel policy allows you to land with final reserve at destination if you have an expected approach time. "landing assured" without any other option than your destination airport.
^^^^ this is the specific problem I have with the fuel policy. Its bad airman ship to allow your plan B and plan C disappear while you're stuck in a hold. Then an unexpected event happens such as an unstable approach, wind sheer, ATC go around, then its an instant mayday.
My point it, landing is NEVER assured.
Committing to destination with no other option for landing, then go-around with $1 billion worth of aircraft and passenger liability...seems like an unnecessary risk.
Surely, commit to destination when you have at least at least 2 airports you can reach with final reserve, that's fine, you still have a plan B and plan C. But that really isn't committing to destination, that is starting an approach to your destination knowing that if a black swan event happens you can land at the next airport with final reserve that isn't my filed alternate.
HALAS
You commit to destination, our current fuel policy allows you to land with final reserve at destination if you have an expected approach time. "landing assured" without any other option than your destination airport.
^^^^ this is the specific problem I have with the fuel policy. Its bad airman ship to allow your plan B and plan C disappear while you're stuck in a hold. Then an unexpected event happens such as an unstable approach, wind sheer, ATC go around, then its an instant mayday.
My point it, landing is NEVER assured.
Committing to destination with no other option for landing, then go-around with $1 billion worth of aircraft and passenger liability...seems like an unnecessary risk.
Surely, commit to destination when you have at least at least 2 airports you can reach with final reserve, that's fine, you still have a plan B and plan C. But that really isn't committing to destination, that is starting an approach to your destination knowing that if a black swan event happens you can land at the next airport with final reserve that isn't my filed alternate.
HALAS
pilotday,
Lets say you're going to an isolated airport like Perth or the Seycheles.
You will carry fuel to reach how many alternates?
If you then get in the situation where you can land at your destination with less the FR+ Alt fuel, or land at you ALTERNATE with less the FR+ Alt fuel, which would you choose to do?
Fact is you EVENTUALLY HAVE TO LAND SOMEWHERE, so if landing is never assured, surley it's not safe to ever go flying?
Lets say you're going to an isolated airport like Perth or the Seycheles.
You will carry fuel to reach how many alternates?
If you then get in the situation where you can land at your destination with less the FR+ Alt fuel, or land at you ALTERNATE with less the FR+ Alt fuel, which would you choose to do?
Fact is you EVENTUALLY HAVE TO LAND SOMEWHERE, so if landing is never assured, surley it's not safe to ever go flying?
Last edited by Wizofoz; 2nd Jun 2012 at 17:10.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR-OPS 1.375 In-Flight Fuel Management
(a) ....
(b) A commander shall ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made, with final reserve fuel remaining.
(c) The commander shall declare an emergency when the actual usable fuel on board is less than final reserve fuel.
The general principle is that:
If you think you might land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a PAN.
If you know you will land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a MAYDAY.
(a) ....
(b) A commander shall ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made, with final reserve fuel remaining.
(c) The commander shall declare an emergency when the actual usable fuel on board is less than final reserve fuel.
The general principle is that:
If you think you might land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a PAN.
If you know you will land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a MAYDAY.
"The crew decided to divert to Ottawa declaring emergency indicating they might need to cut into their final fuel reserve of 30 minutes in case of any delays. The aircraft climbed to FL230 enroute to Ottawa,on approach to Ottawa the crew reported 6.3 tons of fuel/14000 lbs of fuel on board and cancelled their emergency under the condition that they were vectored directly for a RNAV approach to runway 14. The aircraft landed safely on runway 14 about 50 minutes after aborting the approach in Toronto with more fuel than final reserve remaining..."
So declaring mayday ahead of the legal state, just to clear your way into the alternate, then subsequently canceling it, is this wise precaution or not quite sop?
Imagine a Saab 340 doing that and have some big one go-around for it (as reported) and wait for the flak for the poor guy!
Quod licet jovi non licet bovi I guess
Last edited by glofish; 3rd Jun 2012 at 05:59.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotday
Are unstable approaches, ATC instructed go arounds and windshear not possibilities at your alternate too?
The only confusion with this policy is coming from your end.
Are unstable approaches, ATC instructed go arounds and windshear not possibilities at your alternate too?
The only confusion with this policy is coming from your end.