767 lands !!!!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rosterwilltell
Age: 68
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wet spot reserves
The distance to the alternate is in most flightplans great circle.
Extra fuel jigs into possible earnings.
Every chance is translated into payload.
The ILS at ZRH still is and was CAT 3B.
RVR is in fact only required beeing able to taxi the plane after auto rollout.
The wind was calm on first contact.
RVR was sufficient when available.
There was obviously no fault on the plane.
The only thing missing was an intermittant communication failure of a line on ground.
Technically this was a normal landing like every day (without disturbing steering inputs of a pilot).
A diversion in a scenario of just the required fuel.
Every guy who did a diversion due to airport closure knows about the resulting delays taking the crew almost certain into a fuel emergency.
These airplanes and ground facilities are far more sophisticated than radar vectors and traffic handling, this is for shure.
So the CAPTAIN did the only right thing, he DECIDED the safest way to take the flight to ground.
And he did it rubber first, we only can agree.
Extra fuel jigs into possible earnings.
Every chance is translated into payload.
The ILS at ZRH still is and was CAT 3B.
RVR is in fact only required beeing able to taxi the plane after auto rollout.
The wind was calm on first contact.
RVR was sufficient when available.
There was obviously no fault on the plane.
The only thing missing was an intermittant communication failure of a line on ground.
Technically this was a normal landing like every day (without disturbing steering inputs of a pilot).
A diversion in a scenario of just the required fuel.
Every guy who did a diversion due to airport closure knows about the resulting delays taking the crew almost certain into a fuel emergency.
These airplanes and ground facilities are far more sophisticated than radar vectors and traffic handling, this is for shure.
So the CAPTAIN did the only right thing, he DECIDED the safest way to take the flight to ground.
And he did it rubber first, we only can agree.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DoNotFeed
I cannot agree more!!!
I would like to add that even in civilized countries when you request to divert you have the great chance to first be put in the holding, hearing the phrase: "coordination in progress"....
On modern airports, operating with modern aircrafts, fog is not an issue anymore. I would have had a totally different attitude in case of thunderstorm, snow, ice...
GJ
I would like to add that even in civilized countries when you request to divert you have the great chance to first be put in the holding, hearing the phrase: "coordination in progress"....
On modern airports, operating with modern aircrafts, fog is not an issue anymore. I would have had a totally different attitude in case of thunderstorm, snow, ice...
GJ
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
things do happen even with modern aircraft, fog, and "modern" airports...recall an american airlines 727 landing short at KORD a few years ago...granted a Cat 2 not Cat3 and the 727 is old and so is KORD...but things do happen, even in fog.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly like previous posters say: if flyingcroc things that going to the altn with MDF results in him being the only one to go and fuel is not a problem means that he probably has never gone to an altn yet.
Good decision of crew! Fly safe!
Good decision of crew! Fly safe!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong handflying
I did diversions before and more than one. You are right that you will not the only one. That is why the regulations (in my company, I guess there are also regs by JAR Ops) demand that you arrive at the destination with at least 30 minutes of holding fuel in case of Low Vis Cat3 conditions. If unforeseen weather conditions arise inflight planning should maybe call for a diversion before arriving MDF at the destination.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingcroc???? Where did unforeseen weather conditions arise in this case?
They had normal cat3 wx conditions with 2 operative independent separate...cat3B rwys when they first arrived at dest. So they went to make a cat3B app and land, end of story! They probably had more then MDF when they first arrived at dest! Then when they had started their first approach problems started. Analyse succession of events in time in this case. Your statement they should have diverted before arriving at dest because wx was cat3B doesn't make sense.
(And 2,5T fuel on top of flightplan (see previous posts!!!!read all posts!) is more then 30 min on a 767)
Again: almost complete responsability lies in zrh apt authority, not with the crew who did a good job.
They had normal cat3 wx conditions with 2 operative independent separate...cat3B rwys when they first arrived at dest. So they went to make a cat3B app and land, end of story! They probably had more then MDF when they first arrived at dest! Then when they had started their first approach problems started. Analyse succession of events in time in this case. Your statement they should have diverted before arriving at dest because wx was cat3B doesn't make sense.
(And 2,5T fuel on top of flightplan (see previous posts!!!!read all posts!) is more then 30 min on a 767)
Again: almost complete responsability lies in zrh apt authority, not with the crew who did a good job.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ch
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are the same cowboys landing short at a Swiss military airfield called Emmen near Lucerne on Thursday.
Actually 300m short - the displaced threshold visible is for aircraft less than 50t, the one for this a/c is 150m further down.
Aircraft was chartered to fly UN troops to the Balkans.
Another investigation we hope...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mars
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeropers, you seem to have a problem with this airline ?,
The runway is 8200ft long, do you know what weight this 767 was on touchdown ? have you seen the tech log to check that the spoilers were working or both reversers were serviceable ? NO ????????? Please don't judge the captain of an airliner when you presumably know nothing about it.
There's nothing as useless as the runway behind ya !
The runway is 8200ft long, do you know what weight this 767 was on touchdown ? have you seen the tech log to check that the spoilers were working or both reversers were serviceable ? NO ????????? Please don't judge the captain of an airliner when you presumably know nothing about it.
There's nothing as useless as the runway behind ya !
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does a thread like this garner so much response?
Aeropers has a cross to bear, plain and simple.
The airline in question undoubtedly made the right decision regardless of the sequence of events.
Lets's not get too myopic in our reasoning here.
Jason.
Aeropers has a cross to bear, plain and simple.
The airline in question undoubtedly made the right decision regardless of the sequence of events.
Lets's not get too myopic in our reasoning here.
Jason.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I agree that Aeropers (the person, not the institution) is a plague, I have to admit I got big eyes when I saw this picture. I think it's not allowed to touch down before any threshold. Might they have received some sort of approval? This picture is hard evidence, I must say.
Of course, we should bear in mind the reason behind but hey, you also start to wonder around when Ryanair does something strange or if a Southwest runs over. This is a Rumours network after all, and this picture is not a rumour...
Of course, we should bear in mind the reason behind but hey, you also start to wonder around when Ryanair does something strange or if a Southwest runs over. This is a Rumours network after all, and this picture is not a rumour...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Age: 46
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Dani, this picture (if not edited) is not just a rumour. But comments like "the same cowboys" and "Another investigation we hope" only show that Aeropers(the person, not institution) is not interested in healthily discussing how and why that picture happened and how to avoid it happening again. His intentions are purely at throwing mud at that airline as a vendetta or something on those lines. This, in my opinion, should not be allowed in this forum.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longstay,
Landing short of the threshold is not acceptable, this aircraft touched in an area available for take-off's but not for landings. The pavement ahead of the displaced threshold may not be of suitable load bearing strength. It is also possible this section was not protected by a full instrument or even a visual runway strip. If the aircraft had unserviceablities, this should have been accounted for by the crew when assessing the Landing Distance Available. If the figures don't add up then you don't land. Can only assume there was a significant unforseen tech problem with the aircraft, otherwise you must conclude this was cock-up!
AeroMANC
Landing short of the threshold is not acceptable, this aircraft touched in an area available for take-off's but not for landings. The pavement ahead of the displaced threshold may not be of suitable load bearing strength. It is also possible this section was not protected by a full instrument or even a visual runway strip. If the aircraft had unserviceablities, this should have been accounted for by the crew when assessing the Landing Distance Available. If the figures don't add up then you don't land. Can only assume there was a significant unforseen tech problem with the aircraft, otherwise you must conclude this was cock-up!
AeroMANC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like some info has been (on political grounds?) filtered by our dear moderators 
Here I try to post again:
The same subject is treated (in German though) on:
http://www.flightforum.ch/forum/showthread.php?t=41099
... where participant Rust en Vrede alias Stefan makes the same acerb and superior comments as a certain aeropers, strange strange
Here I try to post again:
The same subject is treated (in German though) on:
http://www.flightforum.ch/forum/showthread.php?t=41099
... where participant Rust en Vrede alias Stefan makes the same acerb and superior comments as a certain aeropers, strange strange
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ch
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems that my informant wasn't quite correct - the main reason for the displaced threshold at Emmen is to protect the arrester gear (no more Vampires or Hunters unfortunately but F5's and F18's). It can be removed in which case the original data is correct. On Thursday the Belair 'boys managed to miss it but still landed well short.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear Mr longstay..well....I have no idea who this airline is, never heard of them before i saw that picture..(nice paint job though) but......that is NOT landing runway they touching down on...it is not A PART OF THE PUBLISHED LANDING DISTANCE for that runway...so your post is ridiculous....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: guess where
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironbutt
You need to know, that this was a landing on a military airfield. The displaced threshold is there for other reasons than civil landings. Civilian pilots get a special briefing when they have to go there and this includes, if my memory serves me right, that you may land short of the "painted" threshold. So longstay's post is not that ridiculous. One needs to know all the facts to judge.
You need to know, that this was a landing on a military airfield. The displaced threshold is there for other reasons than civil landings. Civilian pilots get a special briefing when they have to go there and this includes, if my memory serves me right, that you may land short of the "painted" threshold. So longstay's post is not that ridiculous. One needs to know all the facts to judge.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mars
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
dear Mr longstay..well....I have no idea who this airline is, never heard of them before i saw that picture..(nice paint job though) but......that is NOT landing runway they touching down on...it is not A PART OF THE PUBLISHED LANDING DISTANCE for that runway...so your post is ridiculous....
The point i was making and still am is that you don't know what you are talking about, why would you, you wern't there ? has the airfield filed a complaint ? no ?? well why not ??- to many spotters on here !
a little knowledge and all that.........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, at the time I posted, I was not aware of the special circumstances at this particular airport..yur original post led me and others to believe it was ok to touchdown in a displaced threshold area if the airplane was heavy or otherwise..so knowledge comes from information which we all now have....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the original point .... (isn't it amazing how the thread wanders?) This sort of thing obviously happens all the time...
MEDIA RELEASE
2005/24
Final ATSB report: Aircraft landing at Sydney in fog conditions
02 August 2005
The ATSB's final investigation report has found that an Airbus A330 passenger aircraft that landed at Sydney in fog on 6 April last year did so because the adverse weather conditions were unforecast and the flight crew continued to manoeuvre the aircraft for a landing at Sydney past the time they had previously nominated as the latest time for a diversion to Canberra.
Since the occurrence safety action has been taken by the air traffic services provider and the Bureau of Meteorology to improve the reporting of weather information to flight crews and to improve the accuracy of fog forecasting at Sydney airport.
On 6 April 2004, at about 0625 EST, an Airbus A330-301 aircraft, registered VH-QPC, landed on runway 34L at Sydney airport in weather conditions that were below the landing minima. The aircraft was being operated on a scheduled passenger flight from Perth to Sydney and it had departed Perth with sufficient fuel for the flight based on the current Sydney aerodrome forecast. This forecast indicated that, when the aircraft was due to arrive at Sydney, the weather conditions would be adequate for a landing. However, when the aircraft was about 110 km southwest of Sydney the weather conditions deteriorated due to unforecast fog.
The crew used weather information provided by controllers when making decisions in response to the deteriorating visibility at Sydney airport. However, not all of the weather information was passed to the crew. This resulted in a reduction in the level of appreciation by the crew about the dynamic weather situation and, in particular, the rapid progression of fog across the runway complex.
The crew initially required an instrument landing system approach to runway 16 Right based on runway visual range information from Sydney Airport runway observers which did not reflect the actual visibility conditions. After being advised of a report from the crew of another aircraft about the visibility being better at the threshold of runway 34 Left, the crew of VH-QPC then decided to conduct an approach to that runway.
The crew had previously advised the air traffic controller that they would need to divert to Canberra at 0618. On the basis of the information available to them, the crew decided to continue manoeuvring the aircraft for an approach to runway 34L past that nominated time. However, while the crew were making the approach the fog moved across the threshold of runway 34L. The crew then conducted an autoland onto that runway in conditions that were worse than the landing minima specified by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The report (Aviation Safety Investigation Report 200401270) can be obtained from the website, or directly from the ATSB by telephoning 02 6274 6425 or 1800 020 616.
Media Contact: George Nadal business hours (and after hours duty officer) 1800 020 616
MEDIA RELEASE
2005/24
Final ATSB report: Aircraft landing at Sydney in fog conditions
02 August 2005
The ATSB's final investigation report has found that an Airbus A330 passenger aircraft that landed at Sydney in fog on 6 April last year did so because the adverse weather conditions were unforecast and the flight crew continued to manoeuvre the aircraft for a landing at Sydney past the time they had previously nominated as the latest time for a diversion to Canberra.
Since the occurrence safety action has been taken by the air traffic services provider and the Bureau of Meteorology to improve the reporting of weather information to flight crews and to improve the accuracy of fog forecasting at Sydney airport.
On 6 April 2004, at about 0625 EST, an Airbus A330-301 aircraft, registered VH-QPC, landed on runway 34L at Sydney airport in weather conditions that were below the landing minima. The aircraft was being operated on a scheduled passenger flight from Perth to Sydney and it had departed Perth with sufficient fuel for the flight based on the current Sydney aerodrome forecast. This forecast indicated that, when the aircraft was due to arrive at Sydney, the weather conditions would be adequate for a landing. However, when the aircraft was about 110 km southwest of Sydney the weather conditions deteriorated due to unforecast fog.
The crew used weather information provided by controllers when making decisions in response to the deteriorating visibility at Sydney airport. However, not all of the weather information was passed to the crew. This resulted in a reduction in the level of appreciation by the crew about the dynamic weather situation and, in particular, the rapid progression of fog across the runway complex.
The crew initially required an instrument landing system approach to runway 16 Right based on runway visual range information from Sydney Airport runway observers which did not reflect the actual visibility conditions. After being advised of a report from the crew of another aircraft about the visibility being better at the threshold of runway 34 Left, the crew of VH-QPC then decided to conduct an approach to that runway.
The crew had previously advised the air traffic controller that they would need to divert to Canberra at 0618. On the basis of the information available to them, the crew decided to continue manoeuvring the aircraft for an approach to runway 34L past that nominated time. However, while the crew were making the approach the fog moved across the threshold of runway 34L. The crew then conducted an autoland onto that runway in conditions that were worse than the landing minima specified by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The report (Aviation Safety Investigation Report 200401270) can be obtained from the website, or directly from the ATSB by telephoning 02 6274 6425 or 1800 020 616.
Media Contact: George Nadal business hours (and after hours duty officer) 1800 020 616