767 lands !!!!

[AN2 Driver]

Originally Posted by Robert Vesco

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.

No. I see nothing to indicate that neither DPP nor no alternate was used, no alternate is no option for Long Haul anyhow and certainly not with that forcast. What I said and what the statement of Belair was is that it took 2.5 tons of fuel on top of the minimum required block fuel for the flight.

You make quite a jump from the other 4 diverting to the Belair 767 landing. What happened in the mean time?

I don't know what happened but let's say I have vague idea based on the statements in the report and only on that. The 767 was on the approach to the first CAT III runway when the backup power to that one failed, or so I understand it. As it became CAT I as a consequence they were ordered to go around. Then ATC switched onto the 2nd runway. Sometime after that, and nowhere is indicated when, but I would rekon pretty soon, ATC discovered that they had no RVR readings at the Tower for that second fully CAT III equipped runway. Take or leave a few minutes after the go around until the ramifications became clear AND was relyed to the airplanes.

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.

Again, don't know means don't know. The alternate fuel to BSL is not that much anyhow. However, the Belair statement said that when the situation with the 10 minutes to fuel emergency was declared there was still enough fuel to go to Basle, albeit with priority and a probable fuel emergency at Basle. Reading through it again I rekon THAT was what the initial announcement meant.

A and C: That depends on how much fuel you have left and the availability of usable alternates, see what I wrote above...

You know that Basle is not far to go, the diversion fuel would be quite minimal. Also, the 2nd runway was perfectly ok apart from the RVR indication at the Tower. I read the whole thing that when they said either we land in 10 minutes here or we have to divert in emergency the tower must have told them that they could expect a full CAT III on the 2nd runway as it finally happened.

[AN2 Driver]

Originally Posted by sarah737

A trip of nearly 10hours, it might have been impossible to carry extra fuel.
Who says they didn't see the runway at CATI minima?

Sarah, the statement sais he HAD 2.5 tons extra at the time of departure.

For the second bit, I doubt it, and when he did land he did so under CAT III with all the information necessary even tough the clearance was pretty late.

[Robert Vesco]

Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage

However ..... when the Saab went around, he had no other airport option because he was too short of fuel.

That´s not true, the Saab went around at HAM (DEST) due windshear and +TS and then diverted to BRE and went around, then diverted to TXL and went around and then ended low on fuel and diverted/commited to Werneuchen, the abandoned Russian airbase east of Berlin.

The Belair crew on the other hand appears to have burned up it´s ALT/EXTRA fuel at DEST (ZRH) without diverting and then was forced to make a CAT III landing on a partially LOVIS servicable runway.

If that´s true, then they should have diverted, just like the other 4...plain and simple.

[AN2 Driver]

Originally Posted by N380UA

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.

That is how I understand it as well.

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.

I think we may well exclude DPP planning as the statement by Belair sais he took 2.5 tons on top of his minimum block fuel. If he had this margin to play with DPP would most probably have been pointless.

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.

Right. It's quite remarkable that the initial post here was a tad more sensationalist than what most of the papers wrote here. That's a new one

@Alexban

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'.

I understand the 18 minutes the time from the closure until the Belair landed. For the remainder, fully concur.

[AN2 Driver]

Originally Posted by Austrian Simon

If you want to apply common sense here, then you need to take into account, that it is not common sense to assume, that two completely independent systems fail at the same time. Here we have two completely independent runways, two completely independent CATIII capable ILS, two completely independent power supplies, two completely independent backup power supplies ...

From what is known and stated here as well that was not even the case. At least the landing runway itself stayed technically CAT III, the only thing that was missing were the RVR readouts on the tower. Everything else worked.

[puff m'call]

Well done to the pilots for making the correct decision and saving the lives of the passengers and crew.

Was that New York where the B707 flew around in bad weather and then ran out of fuel on finals?

[Gretchenfrage]

Robert Vesco

That's exactly what i said: When they went around in TXL, they had no more option, thus the GA was not apropriate.
I think we concurr, that in the end the objective is to land safely. The Belair pilot did, by what plans or measures might be secundary, and the hero of Werneuchen didn't.
Even if planning-wise or letter-wise the latter did a better job (actually I don't know), the fact is that the earlier landed safely and the other one didn't.
This comes to the point of our other different views on other threads:
You have to deal with it!! It's as simple as that.
Others contributetd to this topic, and i agree, the FOM and the letter of the book is for lawyers. We will finally always be to their mercy, unfortunately. What's left to us is only to bring it down safely.
Some do and some don't. I'd rather do.
GF

[ukatco_535]

For whatever reason, the pilots found themselves short of fuel.

They made the executive decision to land below minima (we think without all the facts); He may have found a 'suckers gap' and became visual - it happens.

The crew and passengers walked away safely - Job done, and nicely in my opinion.

ATC may not have been aware of the severity of the problem -they can only work on what they know.

The Captain gets paid a lot of money for quite often doing not too much. This and other emergency situations show exactly why they get paid. To act and think calmly and rationally in testing circumstances. The 'manual' can never cover such events.

If everything was done by the book, there would be a hell of a lot more incidents out there. In ATC, one of the first paragraphs in the manual is that nothing contained within it should stop us doing whatever we feel necessary to ensure a flight stays safe. I am sure that professional pilots all over the world have the same ethos.

From my military flying days - aviate, navigate, communicate. In military terms, to enable you to continue to fight the aircraft. In civil terms, to get safely on the ground, without further incident.

Incidents like the above show why there will be human beings in the cockpit for a long long time to come yet - a computer is not intelligent enough to think through the scenario 'I am running out of fuel but the weather is below my minima' and come up with a safe solution.

[captjns]

It's a good thing that the Flight Control Computers are unable to discern if the ILS system is CAT I II or III. As long as FCC is able to recieve a signal from the ILS/GS antennae and send it to the FCS/AFS then an autoland can be made on a normal CAT I Airport, as long as two of the three 767's autopilots are functioning normally.

[AN2 Driver]

Originally Posted by ukatco_535

For whatever reason, the pilots found themselves short of fuel.
They made the executive decision to land below minima (we think without all the facts); He may have found a 'suckers gap' and became visual - it happens.

It does not appear so, from what is reported and known here they did indeed get the landing clearance in CAT III with all the needed information, albeit a bit late.

[ukatco_535]

AN2 Driver

Thanks for that added info. Not a suckers gap then,and they did receive (a late) clearance.

Still, they put it down in difficult circumstances and I think they did well. I would not, unlike the original poster, like to sit here and in hindsight berate the crew.

Regardless of how they came to be in the situation in the first place, they used their brains and training and walked away from it.

[Midland 331]

>Was that New York where the B707 flew around in bad weather and then ran out of fuel on finals?

Avianca at JFK.

Also CRM and "tardiness in declaring an emergency" issues.

More here

http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOJG/250190.htm

[AN2 Driver]

Originally Posted by ukatco_535

Still, they put it down in difficult circumstances and I think they did well. I would not, unlike the original poster, like to sit here and in hindsight berate the crew.
Regardless of how they came to be in the situation in the first place, they used their brains and training and walked away from it.

True. It was the original poster which prompted me to shed light, there is simply no need of such bias here. And whereas brains and training are concerned, I rekon that goes for all of them. Some good might even come from it eventually.

Best regards
AN2 Driver

[F4F]

puff m'call

well done to the pilots for making the correct decision and saving the lives of the passengers and crew.

In the name of all pilots, thanks for the compliment mate! We perform the same feat every day (for some of us many times a day, eh Gretchenfrage ) we fly, making correct decisions and thereby saving zillions of pax

[threemiles]

ATC and approach/landing clearance

Another view onto the matter:
There is another thread around here about denied approach clearances at EDDM airport.
The conclusion is: whenever the runway is clear and whenever there is no conflicting traffic/obstacle etc. and whatever the personal/airplane minimum of the flight is, it is the duty of ATC to issue an approach and landing clearance if the pilot requests so.
There is no such defined police control function for/by ATC that justifies a "late" landing clearance under the circumstances given.

[Flyingphil]

AN2

As far as what I have heard this plane came from Domenican Republic (maybe I oversaw a respective Comment above, Sorry!)

You said, he had 2,5 tons Extra on Board?
I think you know the regulations, you have to have Extra-Fuel for 30Min when arriving @Desti!
Since an 767 is expected to consume about 5,5t/Fhr I think on TO he was well in line with intern. Standards.

A good Operation or ATC would have informed him about a while prior arrival that the weather changed drastically so that the crew might have made an intermediate fuel-stop or would have gone to the Alternate at once

[AN2 Driver]

Originally Posted by Flyingphil

AN2
As far as what I have heard this plane came from Domenican Republic (maybe I oversaw a respective Comment above, Sorry!)

No, he came from CUN/MMUN/Cancun

You said, he had 2,5 tons Extra on Board?
I think you know the regulations, you have to have Extra-Fuel for 30Min when arriving @Desti!

What the statement from Belair said was that he took 2.5 tons MORE than what the flight plan required him to take, taking into account Route Reserve, Alternate and Final reserve and whatever else is above the line. Using your calculations that would have been around 30 mins on top of any compulsory reserves.

Since an 767 is expected to consume about 5,5t/Fhr I think on TO he was well in line with intern. Standards.

Sure looks like it. Significantly so.

A good Operation or ATC would have informed him about a while prior arrival that the weather changed drastically so that the crew might have made an intermediate fuel-stop or would have gone to the Alternate at once

I don't know what the TAF would have been preflight but I rekon the 2.5 tons over the top of the minimum required fuel might well have been a precaution for low vis expected at destination. Even CAT III originally did not hurt him at all, it was only when CAT III became unavailable WHILE he was on the approach that things got a little tense.

Again 2 independent CAT III runways to become downgraded at the same time is a pretty far stretch. It was a first at ZRH for sure!

[JustAnothrWindScreen]

Quite a few years ago during annual recurrent simulator the problem was given of an engine fire while on final that would not go out. Approaching the Final fix weather is called below minimums, way below minimums. Those that continued and landed... well they landed... those that went around ended up burning up on the downwind and landed the hard way. Everyone has to make their own decision.

[flyaboy69]

Did you say that this happened yesterday?!!! Well, it sounds like one of those nightmarish scenarios that usually happens in the Sim. Any how, you tell me if this crappy situation doesn't constitute to use your PIC authority to land safely--this is as safe as it can get. We'll worry about the questions and answers, later.

[ZeeDoktor]

I think you're all missing the point here. It boils down to two questions:

1. Why did they proceed to the destination when they knew they were going to be cutting on final reserve? Or is anyone saying they didn't monitor their fuel consumption?

2. Why did the backup power generator at Zurich airport not function?

Under the given circumstances, if I was brought in the cockpit during that landing I'd have done the same thing. But as usual, the errors happened way earlier.

I heard btw. the remaining fuel was 1.2t, not 2.5.

Another 2c....