Virgin 'low fuel' MAYDAY
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB (very short) report here
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...OM%2007-07.pdf
Is it me or are the AAIB getting a bit confused with Final Reserve Fuel and the definition of Alternate Holding Fuel?
If he can't make it into Gatwick with 7.4 tonnes of fuel the he should be on his way to Heathrow.
If he thinks Heathrow is going to be a problem at that time of the day then he should have taken sufficient fuel to divert somewhere further away. ie Cardiff/Birmingham.
The figure of 3.9 tonnes is the absolute minimum he should be landing at Heathrow with.
Are Virgin allowed to eat into their alternate holding fuel while still at destination?
What would he have done if the aircraft ahead of him at Gatwick had burst a tyre and blocked the runway? He would have landed at Heathrow with less than Final Reserve Fuel. Mayday would definitely be required at that point.
ATC responded exactly as you would expect them to in response to the ''Mayday' and are faultless. Otherwise it was an abuse of the 'Mayday' rules and involved a lot of queue jumping of arriving aircraft to Gatwick.
Sounds like it was company expedient and cost the rest of us who were held up the time and delay cost (we were sat at the holding point for 26L while all this was going on).
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...OM%2007-07.pdf
Is it me or are the AAIB getting a bit confused with Final Reserve Fuel and the definition of Alternate Holding Fuel?
If he can't make it into Gatwick with 7.4 tonnes of fuel the he should be on his way to Heathrow.
If he thinks Heathrow is going to be a problem at that time of the day then he should have taken sufficient fuel to divert somewhere further away. ie Cardiff/Birmingham.
The figure of 3.9 tonnes is the absolute minimum he should be landing at Heathrow with.
Are Virgin allowed to eat into their alternate holding fuel while still at destination?
What would he have done if the aircraft ahead of him at Gatwick had burst a tyre and blocked the runway? He would have landed at Heathrow with less than Final Reserve Fuel. Mayday would definitely be required at that point.
ATC responded exactly as you would expect them to in response to the ''Mayday' and are faultless. Otherwise it was an abuse of the 'Mayday' rules and involved a lot of queue jumping of arriving aircraft to Gatwick.
Sounds like it was company expedient and cost the rest of us who were held up the time and delay cost (we were sat at the holding point for 26L while all this was going on).
Last edited by Cuillin; 12th Jul 2007 at 11:57.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Having spoken to a couple of ATCO's who work these sectors, I wonder what the comment
from AAIB, means to you guys...the impression given to me was that in the instance of a fuel shortage, all a PAN will do is let the controller know that it is a matter of urgency..and that declaring a MAYDAY was their preferred response as it gives no room for ambiguity.
Avianca springs to mind in the sense that when we are short of a bit of fuel...I'm certain I would want to convey that message in as a concise and recognised way possible.
he
decided to declare an emergency for an approach to
his primary destination. This was in accordance with
his company procedures but a ‘Pan’ call, rather than a
‘Mayday’ would have been more appropriate.
decided to declare an emergency for an approach to
his primary destination. This was in accordance with
his company procedures but a ‘Pan’ call, rather than a
‘Mayday’ would have been more appropriate.
Avianca springs to mind in the sense that when we are short of a bit of fuel...I'm certain I would want to convey that message in as a concise and recognised way possible.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAN call to be made if you may land with less than Final Reserve Fuel.
MAYDAY call to be made if you will land with less then Final Reserve Fuel.
Under normal circumstances this would apply as you are on your way to your alternate.
MAYDAY call to be made if you will land with less then Final Reserve Fuel.
Under normal circumstances this would apply as you are on your way to your alternate.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Cuillin, I wish I worked for your company....all those pesky fuel decisions are so easy
the use of MAY leaves it open to interpretation, until such time as you WILL, afterall, how do you know what ATC are going to do with you?
the use of MAY leaves it open to interpretation, until such time as you WILL, afterall, how do you know what ATC are going to do with you?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haughtney
The guy wasn't short of fuel - he had more than enough to safely divert to his alternate - he just didn't want to go there. It was a nice day and he had a few things go against him - a normal day at work. Hardly comparable to Avianca. He wasn't just about to drop out of the sky.
I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I answered the question you raised.
He arrived at his destination with less than the required fuel at destination (despite a priority approach), had no ability to hold at destination, therefore, he should have diverted (safely & legally).
Everybody else got it right that day (and got delayed) - why couldn't he?
The guy wasn't short of fuel - he had more than enough to safely divert to his alternate - he just didn't want to go there. It was a nice day and he had a few things go against him - a normal day at work. Hardly comparable to Avianca. He wasn't just about to drop out of the sky.
I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I answered the question you raised.
He arrived at his destination with less than the required fuel at destination (despite a priority approach), had no ability to hold at destination, therefore, he should have diverted (safely & legally).
Everybody else got it right that day (and got delayed) - why couldn't he?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
What I'm trying to say is....put yourself in his shoes for a second..you seem to be quite happy to condemn this guy with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight..because it would appear that you are miffed at being delayed.
The report highlights a combination of factors, all of which conspired to put these guys a bit short..and are you telling me that you've NEVER been a bit tight on gas?
I can't fault the decision in any real sense, yet you give the impression that because everyone else had no problems..it is perfectly acceptable to have a pop at someone who did. It is very easy to point the finger after the fact.
The report highlights a combination of factors, all of which conspired to put these guys a bit short..and are you telling me that you've NEVER been a bit tight on gas?
I can't fault the decision in any real sense, yet you give the impression that because everyone else had no problems..it is perfectly acceptable to have a pop at someone who did. It is very easy to point the finger after the fact.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haughtney.
Of course we have all been a bit short at times and done the normal thing - use airmanship, command skills, divert if necessary.
I am not hanging anyone out to dry or using twenty twenty hindsight - I was there, listening in to part of it and we have an AAIB report available. Are you sanctioning that we all use the technique of calling Mayday every time we reach a minimum fuel figure at destination such that we avoid a diversion? As to the wisdom of arriving in the London TMA on a weekday morning with less than zero destination holding fuel then that is another argument.
The Mayday should have come as he went around at Gatwick (destination) and reckoned that he was less than Final Reserve at Heathrow (alternate). If he had any doubts about what he was letting himself into then he should have diverted en route at an earlier stage. Many people were delayed both inbound and outbound that morning to allow the Virgin to make his priority approach.
From your comments I cannot make out if you are ATC, a Virgin employee or someone that is not 100% up to speed on fuel planning and the rules that go with it.
My last comment as I look forward to other people's opinions of the report.
Of course we have all been a bit short at times and done the normal thing - use airmanship, command skills, divert if necessary.
I am not hanging anyone out to dry or using twenty twenty hindsight - I was there, listening in to part of it and we have an AAIB report available. Are you sanctioning that we all use the technique of calling Mayday every time we reach a minimum fuel figure at destination such that we avoid a diversion? As to the wisdom of arriving in the London TMA on a weekday morning with less than zero destination holding fuel then that is another argument.
The Mayday should have come as he went around at Gatwick (destination) and reckoned that he was less than Final Reserve at Heathrow (alternate). If he had any doubts about what he was letting himself into then he should have diverted en route at an earlier stage. Many people were delayed both inbound and outbound that morning to allow the Virgin to make his priority approach.
From your comments I cannot make out if you are ATC, a Virgin employee or someone that is not 100% up to speed on fuel planning and the rules that go with it.
My last comment as I look forward to other people's opinions of the report.
Cuillin you are wrong to say he should have diverted.
If the airfield is open and weather suitable (as in this case) only a fool would set off on a diversion to intensionally make a low fuel situation more critical by burning your alternate fuel.
Given that LHR and LGW would both be likely to be suffering from delays just declare a PAN/Mayday as appropriate, get on with the approach and make a note to carry more fuel next time.
The only time this would not be sensible is if the weather is marginal at your destination and your alternate is better (which it always should be). In this case landing is not assured at your destination and you should have been on your way to to your alternate sometime ago!
If the airfield is open and weather suitable (as in this case) only a fool would set off on a diversion to intensionally make a low fuel situation more critical by burning your alternate fuel.
Given that LHR and LGW would both be likely to be suffering from delays just declare a PAN/Mayday as appropriate, get on with the approach and make a note to carry more fuel next time.
The only time this would not be sensible is if the weather is marginal at your destination and your alternate is better (which it always should be). In this case landing is not assured at your destination and you should have been on your way to to your alternate sometime ago!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
From your comments I cannot make out if you are ATC, a Virgin employee or someone that is not 100% up to speed on fuel planning and the rules that go with it.
Are you sanctioning that we all use the technique of calling Mayday every time we reach a minimum fuel figure at destination such that we avoid a diversion?
Your statement also suggests that you would have considered a better course of action to be to head off to LHR (at possibly the worst time of the day) burning your diversion fuel..then declaring a MAYDAY due to low fuel.
IMHO, I would be happier to land sooner rather than later(at an airfield i can see is open and available), with more of a margin in hand..than perhaps to diligently follow a course of action that whilst legal in the strictest sense..is a reciepe for opening a can of worms, but then that may be a "cultural" or "organisational" difference between you and I Cuillin.
If he had any doubts about what he was letting himself into then he should have diverted en route at an earlier stage
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest guys that you read the previous 7 pages on this subject and see what the majority of people's views are on this one.
I wouldn't expect to have to depend on LHR as a diversion either.
I assume from your comments then Virgin are allowed to eat into their alternate holding fuel at destination.
This 'event' should have been sorted out long before he got to GWC. He would have been well within range of a number of fuel stops while inbound ie Shannon, Cardiff etc.
There was nothing technically wrong with the aircraft and the weather was fine.
The one person who had got his fuel calculations wrong (and would be aware of lack of tailwinds, re-routings as a possibility) got a direct approach to Gatwick while everybody else (who had taken sensible amounts of fuel to allow for various possibilities) were delayed because of him. He was either unlucky or got it wrong so he was the one that should have taken the hit (a diversion).
There seems to be no serious pressure from Virgin on their crews in respect of fuel decisions so why did he leave it so tight?
There doesn't seem to be any cover in your arguments for the 'what ifs' that are included in any sensible command decision.
I would like to think that this crew won't get themselves into this situation again.
I wouldn't expect to have to depend on LHR as a diversion either.
I assume from your comments then Virgin are allowed to eat into their alternate holding fuel at destination.
This 'event' should have been sorted out long before he got to GWC. He would have been well within range of a number of fuel stops while inbound ie Shannon, Cardiff etc.
There was nothing technically wrong with the aircraft and the weather was fine.
The one person who had got his fuel calculations wrong (and would be aware of lack of tailwinds, re-routings as a possibility) got a direct approach to Gatwick while everybody else (who had taken sensible amounts of fuel to allow for various possibilities) were delayed because of him. He was either unlucky or got it wrong so he was the one that should have taken the hit (a diversion).
There seems to be no serious pressure from Virgin on their crews in respect of fuel decisions so why did he leave it so tight?
There doesn't seem to be any cover in your arguments for the 'what ifs' that are included in any sensible command decision.
I would like to think that this crew won't get themselves into this situation again.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cuillin
Your posts are absolute twaddle!
What the aircraft commander did on the day was absolutely correct (with the possible choice of the the 'Mayday' word viz 'Pan'). I would have done the same thing.
Before you ask, no, I do not work for VS but BA, and likewise command a B747. Your signature gives no clue as to your profession, what is it?
[Edited to add: 100% hindsight is easy, foresight is an art and fallible]
Your posts are absolute twaddle!
What the aircraft commander did on the day was absolutely correct (with the possible choice of the the 'Mayday' word viz 'Pan'). I would have done the same thing.
Before you ask, no, I do not work for VS but BA, and likewise command a B747. Your signature gives no clue as to your profession, what is it?
[Edited to add: 100% hindsight is easy, foresight is an art and fallible]
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With his knowledge that he would probably encounter
another delay at the alternate airfield of Heathrow, he
decided to declare an emergency for an approach to
his primary destination. This was in accordance with
his company procedures but a ‘Pan’ call, rather than a
‘Mayday’ would have been more appropriate.
This kind of sums it up - it worked on the day but for future reference, a PAN would have worked better.
Been there, lost tailwind, New York refused levels, etc etc. My approach is to let Shannon know on VHF that your fuel state is on minima, they pass it to London or Manchester with 40 minutes notice and the rest is usually seamless professional vectoring.
I have landed on minima 3 or 4 times, below minima with seperated runways twice, it is not pleasant, but the ATC guys will bend over backwards to help a genuine problem. Naturally, the first call is to the watch supervisor with a big thankyou.
I guess it makes the CRM lectures worthwhile
another delay at the alternate airfield of Heathrow, he
decided to declare an emergency for an approach to
his primary destination. This was in accordance with
his company procedures but a ‘Pan’ call, rather than a
‘Mayday’ would have been more appropriate.
This kind of sums it up - it worked on the day but for future reference, a PAN would have worked better.
Been there, lost tailwind, New York refused levels, etc etc. My approach is to let Shannon know on VHF that your fuel state is on minima, they pass it to London or Manchester with 40 minutes notice and the rest is usually seamless professional vectoring.
I have landed on minima 3 or 4 times, below minima with seperated runways twice, it is not pleasant, but the ATC guys will bend over backwards to help a genuine problem. Naturally, the first call is to the watch supervisor with a big thankyou.
I guess it makes the CRM lectures worthwhile
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cuillan
If your knowledge of procedure is as you suggest, then your lack of knowledge frightens me
If they are absolute twaddle then you frighten me, Topbunk.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topbunk
Sounds like the same attitude that a certain captain in your company took when he landed Concorde on fumes at LHR. If it all goes swimmingly then hardly anybody notices - when things go against you they go wrong big time.
Virgin had a very compliant and able London ATC to back them up. I have listened (albeit some time ago) to a TWA 747 waiting for 30 minutes in the Merue hold at CDG for a diversion clearance. His voice was going up several octaves every time he spoke.
Oh, by the way, current heavy Boeing Captain and 10 years in NATS ATC as a fully validated controller. Air Law studied to a far higher degree than the UK ATPL Air Law exam.
If it was such a non event then why did he declare a mayday and why is it subject to an AAIB report?
Sounds like the same attitude that a certain captain in your company took when he landed Concorde on fumes at LHR. If it all goes swimmingly then hardly anybody notices - when things go against you they go wrong big time.
Virgin had a very compliant and able London ATC to back them up. I have listened (albeit some time ago) to a TWA 747 waiting for 30 minutes in the Merue hold at CDG for a diversion clearance. His voice was going up several octaves every time he spoke.
Oh, by the way, current heavy Boeing Captain and 10 years in NATS ATC as a fully validated controller. Air Law studied to a far higher degree than the UK ATPL Air Law exam.
If it was such a non event then why did he declare a mayday and why is it subject to an AAIB report?
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always planning to arrive at LHR in a 744 with never less than 25,000 lbs, which includes 20 mins holding at LHR, on a nice day with Stansted as diversion, one day last year after 25 minutes holding, had to Go Around with one on not clearing, had such a warm fuzzy feeling going downwind that I had in fact arrived in the Hold as planned with 30,000 lbs. But then my operation allows me to do that, so maybe I'm lucky that I'm usually free of the extraordinary stress that many pilots have to suffer because of their company's minimum fuel policies. The worst times I think I had was trying to stretch Dan Air 727's LGW to Tenerife using ERA's all over the place, No 7, say, on approach, when you knew there were at least the same number holding at the diversion, say Las Palmas. Crazy! When the APU flames out taxying in as I believed happened to a Far East 744 operator, it was time for the CAA to take an interest, which it did I believe, after some 10 documented incidents of their arriving at LHR with below minimum fuel.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The smokin' hole, it WILL happen...unless
...the British airlines inbound to LHR/LGW carry enough fuel, not 'just' what's required, but a sufficient amount to actually make a difference.
And, not lie about what fuel remains, to achieve a commercial advantage.
Oh gosh...some do?
What an absolute surprise....
And, not lie about what fuel remains, to achieve a commercial advantage.
Oh gosh...some do?
What an absolute surprise....
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see 411A has popped up at last. Dunno what took you so long as this is one of your pet subjects, although I seem to recall that last time this came up you could offer no evidence of a British carrier cheating to achieve commercial advantage. Found any yet, or can we file this one away with the others?
