767 lands !!!!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much was left in the tanks when they were checked? or doesn't anyone check after such an event? What would happen if you worked in a bank and told your boss you almost lost a £100 million but it turned out alright in the end?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar previous priors
Last time this happened was unforecast fog (QANTAS at Perth) and ANSETT A320 in Adelaide, South Australia. At least they had a viable excuse.
Does anybody recall/know the links to those reports?
Does anybody recall/know the links to those reports?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that if things had gone from bad to worse, the plane might have missed the runway and crashed short or off to one side.
but it didn't.
this pilot will probably be punished in one form or another. let us just be happy that this is a minor incident and not on the front page of the NY Times.
you said to guess who it was. was it american airlines?
jon
but it didn't.
this pilot will probably be punished in one form or another. let us just be happy that this is a minor incident and not on the front page of the NY Times.
you said to guess who it was. was it american airlines?
jon
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They shouldn't have got into that situation, that's for sure.
But as has been pointed out, s*** sometimes happens quickly and unexpectantly. Then plan B comes into play and I think they applied it well, they landed safely.
Remember another incident a few years ago when a Saab got caught in one of the most severe squall lines in northern Europe? They diverted twice to avoid it and found themselves on final of a big airport. There the wind exceeded the maximum and ATC closed it. The captain diverted once again just to run out of fuel and crash the aircraft on a closed airport into a wall across the runway. Luckily no one got hurt.
The situation was similar, the skipper lacked the captaincy to declare fuel emergency and tell ATC that they're going to put it down anyway, as there was a lighted runway, rescue service, observer etc.
To me the Belair skipper was right.
GF
But as has been pointed out, s*** sometimes happens quickly and unexpectantly. Then plan B comes into play and I think they applied it well, they landed safely.
Remember another incident a few years ago when a Saab got caught in one of the most severe squall lines in northern Europe? They diverted twice to avoid it and found themselves on final of a big airport. There the wind exceeded the maximum and ATC closed it. The captain diverted once again just to run out of fuel and crash the aircraft on a closed airport into a wall across the runway. Luckily no one got hurt.
The situation was similar, the skipper lacked the captaincy to declare fuel emergency and tell ATC that they're going to put it down anyway, as there was a lighted runway, rescue service, observer etc.
To me the Belair skipper was right.
GF
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen similar in Command Assessments - the trainer presses and presses until you have to bust minima to land safely.
I would not have wanted to be in that situation, however due to the best planning and preparation, crap occurs and you sometimes end up low on fuel with a weather change after a longhaul flight. Through good communication, good crm and some basic common sense, the job gets done, you land safely and you have earned your money. Thankfully it happens very rarely.
I would not have wanted to be in that situation, however due to the best planning and preparation, crap occurs and you sometimes end up low on fuel with a weather change after a longhaul flight. Through good communication, good crm and some basic common sense, the job gets done, you land safely and you have earned your money. Thankfully it happens very rarely.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ballymun
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't checked any of the links that have been provided so far but it seems to me that, if this airport is known for poor facilities, I feel confident in saying that the crew wouldn't have wanted to go there in that situation unless they were in real trouble. Therefore, given the weather and fuel situation, I reckon the crew did the right thing - good job, well done and beers well earned! 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: where I shouldn’t be
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeropers
What gives? Who are you trying to knock on here? Belair? Skyguide? Unique? Or all of them? What's your point here? Your handle suggests that your are former Swissair – now Swiss or something else. On a little personal vendetta?
So what gives? What are you trying to bring across here?
OzExpat
LSZH actually has very good facilities.
What gives? Who are you trying to knock on here? Belair? Skyguide? Unique? Or all of them? What's your point here? Your handle suggests that your are former Swissair – now Swiss or something else. On a little personal vendetta?
So what gives? What are you trying to bring across here?
OzExpat
if this airport is known for poor facilities
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Embedded in a pocket of resistance
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
Remember another incident a few years ago when a Saab got caught in one of the most severe squall lines in northern Europe? They diverted twice to avoid it and found themselves on final of a big airport. There the wind exceeded the maximum and ATC closed it. The captain diverted once again just to run out of fuel and crash the aircraft on a closed airport into a wall across the runway. Luckily no one got hurt.
The situation was similar, the skipper lacked the captaincy to declare fuel emergency and tell ATC that they're going to put it down anyway, as there was a lighted runway, rescue service, observer etc.
To me the Belair skipper was right.
GF
The situation was similar, the skipper lacked the captaincy to declare fuel emergency and tell ATC that they're going to put it down anyway, as there was a lighted runway, rescue service, observer etc.
To me the Belair skipper was right.
GF
The only thing I can think of is the lack of taking extra fuel. I remember ZRH can be quite foggy in the mornings and something must have been in the TAF´s. I haven´t been to good ol´ ZRH in ages, but what happened to a CAT III ILS on runway 14? Was that no option for the Belair 767 crew?
Small remark regarding the Saab incident: forcing a 767 to make an autoland on a downgraded CAT I runway in CAT III visibility conditions (from the BFU link provided it appears the ILS equipment was not downgraded, only the RVR and wind meters) is quite a bit different from forcing a small bouncing turboprop onto a runway in windshear, heavy rain and thunderstorm conditions and hope you will walk away from it...
Originally Posted by aeropers
Happened last week:
Aircraft with 235 pax and 9 crew is lined up on ILS, weather Cat3, remaining fuel at or below required minimum. Airport has electrical power problems: rvr and wind info no longer available. Aircraft therefore instructed to go-around, crew then declare short of fuel and emergency situation imminent. ILS officially downgraded to Cat1. All other traffic diverts. ATC clear aircraft for Cat1 approach although weather remains Cat3. Crew commence approach, at final approach fix ATC informs that rvr below Cat1 minimum. aircraft however continues, but does not receive landing clearance. Just before touchdown crew asks for and receives clearance to land.
Guess the operator and airport...
Aircraft with 235 pax and 9 crew is lined up on ILS, weather Cat3, remaining fuel at or below required minimum. Airport has electrical power problems: rvr and wind info no longer available. Aircraft therefore instructed to go-around, crew then declare short of fuel and emergency situation imminent. ILS officially downgraded to Cat1. All other traffic diverts. ATC clear aircraft for Cat1 approach although weather remains Cat3. Crew commence approach, at final approach fix ATC informs that rvr below Cat1 minimum. aircraft however continues, but does not receive landing clearance. Just before touchdown crew asks for and receives clearance to land.
Guess the operator and airport...
Lemme see. The incident you quote was described in a national paper, as you are surely aware. It looks a bit different from there. The figures involved were supplied to the paper by the airline itself.
The aircraft departed it's origin with 2.5 tons above the minimum required fuel. It arrived at the gate with 2.1 remaining, suggesting a landing fuel of around 2.5 tons. I don't know the final reserve of the type but the company states that the landing fuel was above the legal limit.
The airport in question has 2 independent CAT III runways, both of which with independent power sources. The emergency backup power of the main landing runway failed at 0830 local time, the aircraft were redirected to the other CAT III runway. That is when the 767 received the order to go around. Shortly afterwards, the indication of the RVR values at the tower failed for that runway as well. The airport subsequently closed for 18 minutes for landings. The captain of the said 767 advised the tower that they would have to declare a fuel emergency within 10 minutes and divert immediately if no approach was available and were given the approach clearance by ATC. 4 aircraft who were in the holding at the time diverted, others were close to it. The aircraft was given landing clearance at short final. According to the carrier involved it landed with above the final reserve on board.
So some of your comments seem a bit at odd with the reported facts. If the tower had no RVR information, how would they inform the PIC at the FAF that RVR was below minimums? "All the other aircraft diverted" meant exactly 4 of them, surely not the only ones in the hold at that time? Where does the information come from that the fuel on board at the time of the first approach was already below minimum? Nothing I have seen suggests that?
So do you know more than the rest of us of this incident or do I detect a a jump at the chance to have a go at some people which do not belong mixed with a pinch of Schadenfreude?
And apart from that, are you posting in the name of the organisation whose name you have chosen as form nick and if not are they aware of your post and agree? For the record, the incident is under investigation by the respective air investigation branch, which will set the record straight eventually. Up to then, I would suggest to stick to the known facts which are not as few as usual considering that the airline itself volonteered a lot of information such as the fuel levels in the interest of transparency.
What will be my main interest in that report is the ramifications of an airport with 2 independent CAT III runways loosing both of them within a few minutes. Wether the fuel at the onset of this incident was sufficient or not, wether the decision to continue to land in CAT III in the first place was adequate will certainly be cleared at the time. Certainly, in the days of the JAR OPS fuel policies there is not a lot of margin for such incidents when an dual CAT III runway airport suddenly becomes CAT I.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To much rule book-not enough common sence!
It would seen to me that a few people who have posted above have not got a clue about how to be a captain and seem to think that the "big book of rules" will keep thm safe just so long as they don't break any of the rules.
Well guys I have news for you................... the rules are writen for the lawers to fight over should the worst happen and to be complied with under normal situations.
Flying is a dynamic situation and what is a normal flight can turn into a very non-normal flight with the should the wrong set of events fall into place.
No one can cover ALL situations and some times the safest option is to break some of the rules.
In this case the captain took the option of landing in CAT3 using a CAT1 ILS.
There is no doubt that the ILS was radiating signals of the normal quality BUT the power supply back up had failed. the aircraft was short of fuel and divertion was not a good opiton.
Ask your selfs what is the worst thing that could have happend if the ILS power had failed ?................ the aircraft would have had to go-around, a situation that the crew would have practiced in the sim over the years.
in all no big deal.
A lot of things had gone wrong for the captain to have to fly a CAT3 approach on to a CAT1 runway so this course of action would not have been taken lightly and the result was the aircraft on the ground safely, in my opinion good risk management.
It is clear to me that a large number of people who have posted above have no idea about being a captain and think that the rule book will have all the answers, it is time for you all to come out from out from under the rule book safety blanket into the real world and wake up to the fact that from the moment that you open the throttle at the start of a flight the leagal rules are only for guidence, it is the laws of phisics that you have to obey.
Well guys I have news for you................... the rules are writen for the lawers to fight over should the worst happen and to be complied with under normal situations.
Flying is a dynamic situation and what is a normal flight can turn into a very non-normal flight with the should the wrong set of events fall into place.
No one can cover ALL situations and some times the safest option is to break some of the rules.
In this case the captain took the option of landing in CAT3 using a CAT1 ILS.
There is no doubt that the ILS was radiating signals of the normal quality BUT the power supply back up had failed. the aircraft was short of fuel and divertion was not a good opiton.
Ask your selfs what is the worst thing that could have happend if the ILS power had failed ?................ the aircraft would have had to go-around, a situation that the crew would have practiced in the sim over the years.
in all no big deal.
A lot of things had gone wrong for the captain to have to fly a CAT3 approach on to a CAT1 runway so this course of action would not have been taken lightly and the result was the aircraft on the ground safely, in my opinion good risk management.
It is clear to me that a large number of people who have posted above have no idea about being a captain and think that the rule book will have all the answers, it is time for you all to come out from out from under the rule book safety blanket into the real world and wake up to the fact that from the moment that you open the throttle at the start of a flight the leagal rules are only for guidence, it is the laws of phisics that you have to obey.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AN2 Driver
Wether the fuel at the onset of this incident was sufficient or not, wether the decision to continue to land in CAT III in the first place was adequate will certainly be cleared at the time. Certainly, in the days of the JAR OPS fuel policies there is not a lot of margin for such incidents when an dual CAT III runway airport suddenly becomes CAT I.
I do not want to blame the crew but pilots that only think and fly like lawyers get in trouble sooner or later.
They picked a solution out of the options available. ATC is allowed to make a Visual RVR assesment and so are you in case of a Take Off. The options are there ...use them.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Embedded in a pocket of resistance
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, thanks for your reply and additional info AN2 Driver!
It answers some of my questions, but now I also have some new ones:
So did they not take alternate fuel, but instead relied on decision point planning? If so, how could it depart with 2,5 tons above minimum (i.e. extra fuel) when (please correct me if I´m wrong) Decision Point Procedure is usualy something you do when you´re tight on fuel and/or MTOW is a problem.
You make quite a jump from the other 4 diverting to the Belair 767 landing. What happened in the mean time?
Did the 767 crew burn it´s alternate and/or extra fuel in the hold, hoping/betting on any CAT III ILS coming online again in ZRH? With perfect alternates like BSL, MUC and STR just around the corner? If so, it seems like a strange decision.
A and C:
That depends on how much fuel you have left and the availability of usable alternates, see what I wrote above...
It answers some of my questions, but now I also have some new ones:
The aircraft departed it's origin with 2.5 tons above the minimum required fuel. It arrived at the gate with 2.1 remaining, suggesting a landing fuel of around 2.5 tons. I don't know the final reserve of the type but the company states that the landing fuel was above the legal limit.
The captain of the said 767 advised the tower that they would have to declare a fuel emergency within 10 minutes and divert immediately if no approach was available and were given the approach clearance by ATC. 4 aircraft who were in the holding at the time diverted, others were close to it. The aircraft was given landing clearance at short final.
Did the 767 crew burn it´s alternate and/or extra fuel in the hold, hoping/betting on any CAT III ILS coming online again in ZRH? With perfect alternates like BSL, MUC and STR just around the corner? If so, it seems like a strange decision.
A and C:
Ask your selfs what is the worst thing that could have happend if the ILS power had failed ?................ the aircraft would have had to go-around, a situation that the crew would have practiced in the sim over the years.
in all no big deal.
in all no big deal.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Streamline
We are back at square one. Legal minimum requirements are not the same as common sense.
If you want to declare nonetheless, that common sense requires to anticipate the simultaneous failure of these systems (and accordingly load more fuel, burn more fuel, thus wasting a considerable amount of the fuel for just flying fuel around), then you have to ground each and every airplane right away.
Even those systems, that have three or four independent instances on board (be it engines, hydraulics, ...) have shown in the past, that they all could and occasionally did fail at the same time.
Think about it!
Simon
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robert Vesco
"Small remark regarding the Saab incident: forcing a 767 to make an autoland on a downgraded CAT I runway in CAT III visibility conditions (from the BFU link provided it appears the ILS equipment was not downgraded, only the RVR and wind meters) is quite a bit different from forcing a small bouncing turboprop onto a runway in windshear, heavy rain and thunderstorm conditions and hope you will walk away from it..."
This is very true, I would have preferred to be in the 767 than in the Saab. However ..... when the Saab went around, he had no other airport option because he was too short of fuel. So landing would have been the better one with at least a reasonable chance of bringing even a small bouncing turboprop down halfway intact. That's exactly the option the 767 skipper took, and rightly so. Both shouldn't have been in such a situation in the first place and will face some consequence. But the latter chose not to stay airborne with nowhere to go, thus irrespective of the difficulty of putting their respective equipment down, having only a worse option, he took the right and the Saab skipper the wrong option.
GF
"Small remark regarding the Saab incident: forcing a 767 to make an autoland on a downgraded CAT I runway in CAT III visibility conditions (from the BFU link provided it appears the ILS equipment was not downgraded, only the RVR and wind meters) is quite a bit different from forcing a small bouncing turboprop onto a runway in windshear, heavy rain and thunderstorm conditions and hope you will walk away from it..."
This is very true, I would have preferred to be in the 767 than in the Saab. However ..... when the Saab went around, he had no other airport option because he was too short of fuel. So landing would have been the better one with at least a reasonable chance of bringing even a small bouncing turboprop down halfway intact. That's exactly the option the 767 skipper took, and rightly so. Both shouldn't have been in such a situation in the first place and will face some consequence. But the latter chose not to stay airborne with nowhere to go, thus irrespective of the difficulty of putting their respective equipment down, having only a worse option, he took the right and the Saab skipper the wrong option.
GF
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: where I shouldn’t be
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS power did not fail. The system was on Bat./Diesel therefore, I/A/W IACO Annex 10 had to be downgraded to CAT I. This was a legislative/policies issue and not technical. CAT III capabilities were given throughout the entire incident.
The fact that under these circumstances the hot standby was no longer provided as the system was on it already caused the downgrade. The same procedure would apply anywhere else.
I doubt that this information was know to the crew though.
Whether the crew had a visual of the runway lights or the ground at CAT I minima I don’t know nor do I know if the crew relied on a decision point planning.
All I know is that we are missing a bunch of facts here. It probably wasn’t as critical as some make it out to have been. The BFU is investigating, we'll see in due time what has lead up to this event.
The fact that under these circumstances the hot standby was no longer provided as the system was on it already caused the downgrade. The same procedure would apply anywhere else.
I doubt that this information was know to the crew though.
Whether the crew had a visual of the runway lights or the ground at CAT I minima I don’t know nor do I know if the crew relied on a decision point planning.
All I know is that we are missing a bunch of facts here. It probably wasn’t as critical as some make it out to have been. The BFU is investigating, we'll see in due time what has lead up to this event.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RV: minimum required fuel includes alternate fuel. The 2.5 t that he refers to is cpt's fuel,what the cpt asked above the planed required fuel,after he studies all info's concerning the flight:weather,notams,etc..
The decision point planning modifies the route reserve fuel,fuel you burn from whatever reason during flight,for ex weather avoidance.
However the alternate fuel remains the same,and it's included in the fuel figure.If ,at decision point,somewhere on the route,you have enaugh fuel ,you go to destination.If not,you go the alternate planned destination.
The story,as I understand from AN2 driver,is like this: the 767 commenced the app for one rwy,then the cat3 ils failed ,so the 767 did a go-around. Then the airport had to close for 18 min,so the plane had to hold.After 18 min hold the 767 cpt informed that in about 10 min he will declare emergency,and if no approach available he has to divert 'now'.
The ATC cleared him for a cat1 app,as no info's regarding RVR available.
So he commenced the app,and lands,after receiving short final clearance,most likely after he announced rwy in sight.
Where's the problem here?
I have no doubt that they've checked his gate fuel,and also that the final reserve was written on his computerized flight plan.So,no problem finding out if it was or not bellow final reserve.
Brgds Alex
The decision point planning modifies the route reserve fuel,fuel you burn from whatever reason during flight,for ex weather avoidance.
However the alternate fuel remains the same,and it's included in the fuel figure.If ,at decision point,somewhere on the route,you have enaugh fuel ,you go to destination.If not,you go the alternate planned destination.
The story,as I understand from AN2 driver,is like this: the 767 commenced the app for one rwy,then the cat3 ils failed ,so the 767 did a go-around. Then the airport had to close for 18 min,so the plane had to hold.After 18 min hold the 767 cpt informed that in about 10 min he will declare emergency,and if no approach available he has to divert 'now'.
The ATC cleared him for a cat1 app,as no info's regarding RVR available.
So he commenced the app,and lands,after receiving short final clearance,most likely after he announced rwy in sight.
Where's the problem here?
I have no doubt that they've checked his gate fuel,and also that the final reserve was written on his computerized flight plan.So,no problem finding out if it was or not bellow final reserve.
Brgds Alex