767 lands !!!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not specuate until all the facts are in.
We can all agree that any competent captain in his or her right mind would never risk life and limb, and continue to an airport that was below CAT I minima with a degraded CAT III system if he or she had such knowledge.
I am curious to know if the dispatchers and or flight followers had knowledge prior to flight's departure of the status of the CAT III system, and if so, why didn't they red flag the NOTAMS section of the flight plan?
If the approach system was degraded while the flight was enroute and the dispatchers had knowledge of this was the crew notified via or ATC relay? That's the job of a dispatcher or flight follower, monitoring their assigned flights including relaying pertinent data to the crew to avoid such problems.
Forget about ground delays, re-routes, lower than flight planned altitudes flown. It has happened on some occasions that the ground handling personnel at the departure airport has input erroneous data in their computers to come up with an incorrect takeoff weights thus resulting in under targeted fuel burn. Competent crews never push back from the gate with inadequate fuel. Most add a little extra fuel for pucker factor or mom and the kids.
We as crews rely and assume the weight and balance information prepared by ground personnel is accurate. In most cases of automation, the weight and balance information is sent to the company dispatchers so they can generate a flight plan with planned fuel burns. The same regarding automation applies in this case… “Garbage in… garbage out”.
Usually breaks in the link of a chain can result in a catastrophic out come. The crew was very lucky that they are still alive and nobody went to the hospital. So let’s wait until the dust settles to see when and where the link in their chain broke. More importantly let’s hope that we as professionals are never faced with such a predicament.
We can all agree that any competent captain in his or her right mind would never risk life and limb, and continue to an airport that was below CAT I minima with a degraded CAT III system if he or she had such knowledge.
I am curious to know if the dispatchers and or flight followers had knowledge prior to flight's departure of the status of the CAT III system, and if so, why didn't they red flag the NOTAMS section of the flight plan?
If the approach system was degraded while the flight was enroute and the dispatchers had knowledge of this was the crew notified via or ATC relay? That's the job of a dispatcher or flight follower, monitoring their assigned flights including relaying pertinent data to the crew to avoid such problems.
Forget about ground delays, re-routes, lower than flight planned altitudes flown. It has happened on some occasions that the ground handling personnel at the departure airport has input erroneous data in their computers to come up with an incorrect takeoff weights thus resulting in under targeted fuel burn. Competent crews never push back from the gate with inadequate fuel. Most add a little extra fuel for pucker factor or mom and the kids.
We as crews rely and assume the weight and balance information prepared by ground personnel is accurate. In most cases of automation, the weight and balance information is sent to the company dispatchers so they can generate a flight plan with planned fuel burns. The same regarding automation applies in this case… “Garbage in… garbage out”.
Usually breaks in the link of a chain can result in a catastrophic out come. The crew was very lucky that they are still alive and nobody went to the hospital. So let’s wait until the dust settles to see when and where the link in their chain broke. More importantly let’s hope that we as professionals are never faced with such a predicament.
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
I heard btw. the remaining fuel was 1.2t, not 2.5.
Another 2c....
Another 2c....
Originally Posted by captjns
I am curious to know if the dispatchers and or flight followers had knowledge prior to flight's departure of the status of the CAT III system, and if so, why didn't they red flag the NOTAMS section of the flight plan?
If the approach system was degraded while the flight was enroute and the dispatchers had knowledge of this was the crew notified via or ATC relay? That's the job of a dispatcher or flight follower, monitoring their assigned flights including relaying pertinent data to the crew to avoid such problems.
If the approach system was degraded while the flight was enroute and the dispatchers had knowledge of this was the crew notified via or ATC relay? That's the job of a dispatcher or flight follower, monitoring their assigned flights including relaying pertinent data to the crew to avoid such problems.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Departing MMUN-for LSZH i don't think cpt could have uplifted much more then 2,5T on top of fltplan with a full house (MTOW B767 out of MMUN).
Crew not necessarily arrived below min diversion fuel at dest, just maybe waited a liitle bit too long before going to altn after first GA. Did ATC advise crews no upgrade cat3B anymore expected for any rwy?
Zurich apt authority involved definitely:2 backup pwr failures at the same time?? It's like winning the lotery!
Final reserve 767 around 2T.
Crew not necessarily arrived below min diversion fuel at dest, just maybe waited a liitle bit too long before going to altn after first GA. Did ATC advise crews no upgrade cat3B anymore expected for any rwy?
Zurich apt authority involved definitely:2 backup pwr failures at the same time?? It's like winning the lotery!
Final reserve 767 around 2T.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between The Black Swan & The Swettenham Arms
Age: 69
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Departing MMUN-for LSZH i don't think cpt could have uplifted much more then 2,5T on top of fltplan with a full house (MTOW B767 out of MMUN).
I note the poster flies a 767, but I don't know where he gets his figures from.
235 pax is not a big payload for a charter 767; say a ZFM (assuming no freight) of 117Tonnes. A 4,700nm, eastbound flight (10hours? - we already know that they departed at 2215 & landed at 0844). At 5.5T/hr (generous), the trip fuel would be 55T. Let's be generous again & say that the reserves were 5T. 3% contingency of 1.65T and some taxy fuel (0.35T) gives a required ramp fuel of 62T. Add this to the ZFW to give a TOM of 179T. I don't know the MTOM of Belair's 76, but 187T works for me & this is possible out of CUN with no wind, std pressure up to 38degC.
Seems to me that the crew knew that an LVO approach at ZRH was a strong possibility & added 30mins extra to account for the anticipated delays. What a good idea!
How they could have anticipated the multiple failures of ZRH's ground systems without the aid of a crystal ball...let's wait & see what the FBU have to say.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are there so many ifs, buts and what ifs on this post. If my brother had been a girl he would have been my sister.....
The aircraft landed safely no matter what, end of story. No one knows how they would have reacted given the same circumstances - mainly because we dont know the circumstances!
The aircraft landed safely no matter what, end of story. No one knows how they would have reacted given the same circumstances - mainly because we dont know the circumstances!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: California
Age: 58
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windsheer, I agree a 100%. See, with all due respect the majority of the posts on this topic deals with WHY things went wrong, and WHO was responsible, and so on so forth. The way I look at it is that I don't care why, who, how... did or didn't... stay in the moment; land; send those poor souls on their ways; NOW, we start asking questions.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Backtrack, didn't know there were only 235 pax on board; i thought full house and in that case a 30T payload is possible. Add this to a 92T DOW and your approximation of 62T rampfuel gives 184T. (Various MTOW for B763 exist; one of them 184612kg; not all 186880kg.) hence my statement.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corporate pressure?
It seems to me that there was no real issue of an emergency here. The aircraft took off from Cancun with the legal fuel, possibly even 2,5 tons extra. Arriving in ZRH the airport is closed because of Cat1 ILS availability in Cat3 WX conditions.
1) No problem, the aircraft goes around to the alternate (like the others)
2) The aircraft arrived low on fuel and try to "sneak in", questionable airmanship.
3) The aircraft was holding and running low, again request diversion.
4) If low on fuel to due crew error: "Declare an Emergency" and land regardless of WX or equipment condition. There is no need that ZRH had to approve a Cat1 approach.
Strange story, I hope the BAZL will inform us soon on this one?
1) No problem, the aircraft goes around to the alternate (like the others)
2) The aircraft arrived low on fuel and try to "sneak in", questionable airmanship.
3) The aircraft was holding and running low, again request diversion.
4) If low on fuel to due crew error: "Declare an Emergency" and land regardless of WX or equipment condition. There is no need that ZRH had to approve a Cat1 approach.
Strange story, I hope the BAZL will inform us soon on this one?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingcroc,
I think they arrived with MDF so why go to altn if dest has 2 sep rwys with cat3 equipment! (so not arrived low on fuel!) Then they GA possibly still with MDF but why go to altn if there is a second rwy cat3 equipped (can happen that 1 (not 2!) ils equipm downgrades-even if very rare allready-), probably ATC told them the segond one would be ok. So there is no crew error! Landed above final reserve fuel!
The day a missile falls on your altn apt what are you gonna say then? Crew error:they should have predicted it! I think the responsability relies allmost entirely with apt authorities; it's too easy to blame crews allways for unforeseenable events.
I think they arrived with MDF so why go to altn if dest has 2 sep rwys with cat3 equipment! (so not arrived low on fuel!) Then they GA possibly still with MDF but why go to altn if there is a second rwy cat3 equipped (can happen that 1 (not 2!) ils equipm downgrades-even if very rare allready-), probably ATC told them the segond one would be ok. So there is no crew error! Landed above final reserve fuel!
The day a missile falls on your altn apt what are you gonna say then? Crew error:they should have predicted it! I think the responsability relies allmost entirely with apt authorities; it's too easy to blame crews allways for unforeseenable events.
Originally Posted by captjns
Let's not specuate until all the facts are in.
We can all agree that any competent captain in his or her right mind would never risk life and limb, and continue to an airport that was below CAT I minima with a degraded CAT III system if he or she had such knowledge.
I am curious to know if the dispatchers and or flight followers had knowledge prior to flight's departure of the status of the CAT III system, and if so, why didn't they red flag the NOTAMS section of the flight plan?
If the approach system was degraded while the flight was enroute and the dispatchers had knowledge of this was the crew notified via or ATC relay? That's the job of a dispatcher or flight follower, monitoring their assigned flights including relaying pertinent data to the crew to avoid such problems.
Forget about ground delays, re-routes, lower than flight planned altitudes flown. It has happened on some occasions that the ground handling personnel at the departure airport has input erroneous data in their computers to come up with an incorrect takeoff weights thus resulting in under targeted fuel burn. Competent crews never push back from the gate with inadequate fuel. Most add a little extra fuel for pucker factor or mom and the kids.
We as crews rely and assume the weight and balance information prepared by ground personnel is accurate. In most cases of automation, the weight and balance information is sent to the company dispatchers so they can generate a flight plan with planned fuel burns. The same regarding automation applies in this case… “Garbage in… garbage out”.
Usually breaks in the link of a chain can result in a catastrophic out come. The crew was very lucky that they are still alive and nobody went to the hospital. So let’s wait until the dust settles to see when and where the link in their chain broke. More importantly let’s hope that we as professionals are never faced with such a predicament.
We can all agree that any competent captain in his or her right mind would never risk life and limb, and continue to an airport that was below CAT I minima with a degraded CAT III system if he or she had such knowledge.
I am curious to know if the dispatchers and or flight followers had knowledge prior to flight's departure of the status of the CAT III system, and if so, why didn't they red flag the NOTAMS section of the flight plan?
If the approach system was degraded while the flight was enroute and the dispatchers had knowledge of this was the crew notified via or ATC relay? That's the job of a dispatcher or flight follower, monitoring their assigned flights including relaying pertinent data to the crew to avoid such problems.
Forget about ground delays, re-routes, lower than flight planned altitudes flown. It has happened on some occasions that the ground handling personnel at the departure airport has input erroneous data in their computers to come up with an incorrect takeoff weights thus resulting in under targeted fuel burn. Competent crews never push back from the gate with inadequate fuel. Most add a little extra fuel for pucker factor or mom and the kids.
We as crews rely and assume the weight and balance information prepared by ground personnel is accurate. In most cases of automation, the weight and balance information is sent to the company dispatchers so they can generate a flight plan with planned fuel burns. The same regarding automation applies in this case… “Garbage in… garbage out”.
Usually breaks in the link of a chain can result in a catastrophic out come. The crew was very lucky that they are still alive and nobody went to the hospital. So let’s wait until the dust settles to see when and where the link in their chain broke. More importantly let’s hope that we as professionals are never faced with such a predicament.
Unfortunaetly, over err, most airlines don't have flight following or an operational control system like the US. It's left up to the CMD...IMHO this should change.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@handflying
Why divert? because the airport has just closed due to equipment failure and Cat3 conditions! If you arrive with MDF you should have fuel for a go-around and fuel to your alternate. I guess the chance of a bomb falling on your alternate is smaller than a crash due to not properly working ILS equipment. That's why all the other traffic diverted and that is why the Swiss CAA filed an incident report. We will see the results soon.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok flyingcroc, but that's not the way i understand it happened according to what an2driver said: were cleared for lowvis app then controll told them to GA so nothing like apt was closed...anyway...if a poster can't continue based on arguments pointed out by other posters hopeless to talk cause i wasn't there.
I know in case i'd arrive>MDF being cleared for a lowvisapp then told to GA, then told segond rwy 'd be avlble for lowvisapp soon and then that one as well goes off i 'ld be quite angry...even if i'd have fuel enough. It should not happen!!
Hopefully you're allways calculating very good the risk of a missile on your altn (what's that in a 767?allways ldg with 10T or more?) Good job if there are still jobs with such a fuel policy...
I know in case i'd arrive>MDF being cleared for a lowvisapp then told to GA, then told segond rwy 'd be avlble for lowvisapp soon and then that one as well goes off i 'ld be quite angry...even if i'd have fuel enough. It should not happen!!
Hopefully you're allways calculating very good the risk of a missile on your altn (what's that in a 767?allways ldg with 10T or more?) Good job if there are still jobs with such a fuel policy...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@handflying
Again: As an2driver said, they still had 10 min holding fuel, but still decided to shoot the approach despite the tower not having RVR and wind readouts. Again, the CAA will clear the situation. If it was an emergeny situation, I mean fuel low than obviously the pilot did the right thing and land in ZRH. However if he still had 10 min holding and diversion fuel then there was no emergency situation and he should proceed to his alternate like the other planes. I think this is also written in the Belair SOP's.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I read most of the previous posts I realize that the vast majority has no idea about long haul charter flights. Turning back from CUN with a 767 even with full pax is not a problem. But taking extra fuel usually is.... Most of the time you have to justify the 2tons extra (Mom, kids.....) and the extra burnoff to carry them (700??Kg on such a leg). Pressure from the management is very high and they have it easy to say: "Look, how many diversion due to fuel?? Zilch!!! So next time, you better take the minimum AND the closest diversion...."
Then the decision to stay at ZRH after the go around. It is my destination, I have 2!!! runways catIII And the book says that I can go below minimum diverting fuel in such and such conditions. Then the s..t hit the fan and under "My Captain's authority" I decide to land here when it is safer than diverting with low fuel to land maybe on "fumes".
Good and sound decision.
Now it will be paperwork, inquiry and engineers sitting around a table discussing for hours the decision you had to take in minutes (or even less).
Fly safe,
GJ
Then the decision to stay at ZRH after the go around. It is my destination, I have 2!!! runways catIII And the book says that I can go below minimum diverting fuel in such and such conditions. Then the s..t hit the fan and under "My Captain's authority" I decide to land here when it is safer than diverting with low fuel to land maybe on "fumes".
Good and sound decision.
Now it will be paperwork, inquiry and engineers sitting around a table discussing for hours the decision you had to take in minutes (or even less).
Fly safe,
GJ
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GeeJay
Apart from the obvious larger size of the figures involved, I'm kindda curious to learn about the differences between say scheduled short/medium and the mentionned long haul charter fuel planning?
the vast majority has no idea about long haul charter flights
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZURICH
Hi
This was a bit of De ja vu for me.
I read an article in the New Statesman about this incident about 2 weeks ago picked up in a lounge in LHR written by (if I remember rightly) the CEO of Sane in London who was on this flight.
If you are interested, she gave an account of how she was moved from Business class to economy class due to a booking error and then had an argument with the Flight Attendent.
She mentions that the Captain came out of the cockpit and told eveybody there was an emergency....
It seemed a bit over dramatized but worth a read.
All the best
This was a bit of De ja vu for me.
I read an article in the New Statesman about this incident about 2 weeks ago picked up in a lounge in LHR written by (if I remember rightly) the CEO of Sane in London who was on this flight.
If you are interested, she gave an account of how she was moved from Business class to economy class due to a booking error and then had an argument with the Flight Attendent.
She mentions that the Captain came out of the cockpit and told eveybody there was an emergency....
It seemed a bit over dramatized but worth a read.
All the best
Last edited by bawbag; 12th Mar 2006 at 05:15.