Easy Jet - Emergency landing into John Lennon, Liverpool
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BLE
"The important issue is to provide ATC with as much info as possible regarding the remaining fuel so they can make an assessment of which level of emergency services need to be activated."
It isn't the function of ATC to decide what level of emergency services to activate.
Yes, they will declare to emergency services a catagory of emergency, eg 'full emergency', which is possibly where the expression has come into this incident. There are others ranging from 'Local Standby' to 'Aircraft Accident'.
It is a matter for the emergency services to respond in the way they feel appropriate given what information they have, and what they may need in terms of resources IF it goes wrong. I can only speak for Heathrow a few years ago in saying that for each level of ATC declaration, there was a level of response by Police Fire and Ambulance. As far as Police were concerned, as the controlling authority in an emergency, we would varry that depending on what we were told by ATC. A fuel shortage, for example, my have resulted in some roads being closed even though the call was 'local standby'. That may not be the case with a local standby being called for a different reason.
One of the considerations is getting emergency services in BEFORE anything happens, afterwards of course being far to late. An good example being after the Staines aircrash, traffic was inpassable after the first 10 minutes.
The presence of emergency services is therefore a precaution and more a case of having the gang in place, not an indication that we, you, or anyone else expect anything to happen.
"The important issue is to provide ATC with as much info as possible regarding the remaining fuel so they can make an assessment of which level of emergency services need to be activated."
It isn't the function of ATC to decide what level of emergency services to activate.
Yes, they will declare to emergency services a catagory of emergency, eg 'full emergency', which is possibly where the expression has come into this incident. There are others ranging from 'Local Standby' to 'Aircraft Accident'.
It is a matter for the emergency services to respond in the way they feel appropriate given what information they have, and what they may need in terms of resources IF it goes wrong. I can only speak for Heathrow a few years ago in saying that for each level of ATC declaration, there was a level of response by Police Fire and Ambulance. As far as Police were concerned, as the controlling authority in an emergency, we would varry that depending on what we were told by ATC. A fuel shortage, for example, my have resulted in some roads being closed even though the call was 'local standby'. That may not be the case with a local standby being called for a different reason.
One of the considerations is getting emergency services in BEFORE anything happens, afterwards of course being far to late. An good example being after the Staines aircrash, traffic was inpassable after the first 10 minutes.
The presence of emergency services is therefore a precaution and more a case of having the gang in place, not an indication that we, you, or anyone else expect anything to happen.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said FC.
I also think ATC, aerodrome operators and emergency services should get together to provide a more comensurate response to these incidents. If the Easy yesterday had no other problem than a PAN (in accordance with low fuel states detailed above), it seems a tragic waste that a life was lost because an emergency vehicle was speeding to assist. Was external attendance required? How much notice did they get when the aircraft routed SS to GP at 230kts?
It reminds me of an incident at Edinburgh a few years ago. Tornado aborts take off due bird strike. Controller calls an AGI due hot brakes. A fleet of 8 fire engines and 20 ambulances turn up. For a crew of 2.
I also think ATC, aerodrome operators and emergency services should get together to provide a more comensurate response to these incidents. If the Easy yesterday had no other problem than a PAN (in accordance with low fuel states detailed above), it seems a tragic waste that a life was lost because an emergency vehicle was speeding to assist. Was external attendance required? How much notice did they get when the aircraft routed SS to GP at 230kts?
It reminds me of an incident at Edinburgh a few years ago. Tornado aborts take off due bird strike. Controller calls an AGI due hot brakes. A fleet of 8 fire engines and 20 ambulances turn up. For a crew of 2.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It has been known to UK aviators for a long time that PAN is not recognised in many non-UK European countries. Whether a 'fuel emergency' exists in, say, Spain, I know not, so it would be a MAYDAY if required for me. Perhaps a start on getting that standardised with ICAO/JAA would be beneficial, and let's just run with FC's idea of getting a UK system in place?"
The whole point is it was not F.C's idea to get a UK system in place. He is a continental and understands the problem. A MAYDAY may not always be appropriate. It can create unnecessary panic. The real problem is how to get an international system in place which everybody understands!!!!!!!!!! RTFQ
The whole point is it was not F.C's idea to get a UK system in place. He is a continental and understands the problem. A MAYDAY may not always be appropriate. It can create unnecessary panic. The real problem is how to get an international system in place which everybody understands!!!!!!!!!! RTFQ
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FC is correct , there is absolutely no pressure in EZY to take minimum fuel , you take what you think you need on the day , using the ops manual and the CFP as guidance. I have never heard of anyone having their fuel decisions challenged .
That is not to say of course that there arent minimum fuel hero's around like there are in every company.
That is not to say of course that there arent minimum fuel hero's around like there are in every company.
Two comments from me regarding min fuel and F/E's
When I was in easy there was indeed as crew such as FC have indicated a min fuel policy. When discussing plans with crew, if in ops I was aware of met issues, I had no problems mentioning that it may be prudent to 'add a bit for mum', I never had any negative comments from crew, most in fact thanked me, from senior management crew down to new F/o's and captains.
ATC F/E's As part of my call out I pass a/c type and POB to the local emergency services(ES), if POB is unknown (rare but possible with immediate divert in airfield vicinity), then I estimate max potential POB to pass to the ES, eg PA28 max POB = 6 and so on. The ES then have their own standard response reaction to that call. I don't know if they have a grading system for their reaction. My guess is that they have a standard response depending on the priority of the call, e.g. F/E = 2x appliances + 3x Amb, Ac accident 6x appliances + 8x Amb or similar.
With todays increasingly litigenous UK society, I can see call out appliance numbers increasing rather than decreasing any time soon.
When I was in easy there was indeed as crew such as FC have indicated a min fuel policy. When discussing plans with crew, if in ops I was aware of met issues, I had no problems mentioning that it may be prudent to 'add a bit for mum', I never had any negative comments from crew, most in fact thanked me, from senior management crew down to new F/o's and captains.
ATC F/E's As part of my call out I pass a/c type and POB to the local emergency services(ES), if POB is unknown (rare but possible with immediate divert in airfield vicinity), then I estimate max potential POB to pass to the ES, eg PA28 max POB = 6 and so on. The ES then have their own standard response reaction to that call. I don't know if they have a grading system for their reaction. My guess is that they have a standard response depending on the priority of the call, e.g. F/E = 2x appliances + 3x Amb, Ac accident 6x appliances + 8x Amb or similar.
With todays increasingly litigenous UK society, I can see call out appliance numbers increasing rather than decreasing any time soon.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point is it was not F.C's idea to get a UK system in place. He is a continental and understands the problem. A MAYDAY may not always be appropriate. It can create unnecessary panic. The real problem is how to get an international system in place which everybody understands!!!!!!!!!! RTFQ
FWIW I am fully aware of FC's 'provenance' (and I did RTFQ) but detected in his post #10 a suggestion that we start in the UK, where, I think, the problem lies? It would certainly be an easier option, but if he intended a Euope-wide change so-be-it. I think we would be looking at several years of committees, various 'exceptions' filed by Euro countries, etc, and probably little to show for it at the end. Perhaps FC could clarify the suggestion?
Also, I am unclear as to the 'procedure' for, say, a Spanish a/c that is running short of fuel in its approach to a UK airport - can anyone who operates such tell us what call he/she would make?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know if the flight in question departed with min fuel or did they add extra due conditions?
Easy have a preference for the minimum appropriate fuel to be carried. If PLog fuel is deemed appropriate by the crew then that is what we carry. If more is thought to be required then it is put on and there are no questions asked. Period. Full stop. We are aware of both our responsibility to the company (to maximise potential profit) and the travelling public (to carry them in the safest possible way, which is our prime responsibility. Reference BRS airport!) and it shouldn't be a topic of public discussion in what is effectively an agony aunt forum.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where to start
Well it seems nobody is greatly against the idea of having a clear procedure.
As the much maligned JAA has jurisdiction inside/outside of UK it might be a good idea to present any thoughts on the matter to them and let them do something useful for ops.
And RAT, I like being a continental! Now where are me sunglasses? Ah!
FC.
As the much maligned JAA has jurisdiction inside/outside of UK it might be a good idea to present any thoughts on the matter to them and let them do something useful for ops.
And RAT, I like being a continental! Now where are me sunglasses? Ah!
FC.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Miami, Florida, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Easy have a preference for the minimum appropriate fuel to be carried. If PLog fuel is deemed appropriate by the crew then that is what we carry. If more is thought to be required then it is put on and there are no questions asked. Period. Full stop. We are aware of both our responsibility to the company (to maximise potential profit) and the travelling public (to carry them in the safest possible way, which is our prime responsibility. Reference BRS airport!) and it shouldn't be a topic of public discussion in what is effectively an agony aunt forum".
This all sounds reasonable, and Easyjet has a good safety record. But I also think that many here are making assumptions that we simply don't know. But when an emergency is declared, whatever possible cause should be investigated and the cause determined. The crew obviously felt that it was necessary to declare an emergency. I would praise them for declaring it. That doesn't mean that they were at fault. But it doesn't mean that they weren't at fault either. There could have been a problem with the aircraft. Or they may have had bad information about something, such as the weather,or some other factor (ATC?) which may have led them into a decision of continuing on when perhaps they shouldn't have. Or, it might be that someone on the flight deck may have made a mistake. All of these things have happened before. There have been aircraft that departed without the minimum fuel required on the aircraft when the crew failed to check it. (US Air). There have been others that ran out of fuel in the air and either landed in an emergency or crashed. (Hapag Lloyd A310, Vienna, Swiss SAAB 2000 at Berlin, Air Transat A330 over the Atlantic).
We are all subject to human error and the system is also not perfect. But I think that all factors should be looked at and then a solid lesson can be learned.
This all sounds reasonable, and Easyjet has a good safety record. But I also think that many here are making assumptions that we simply don't know. But when an emergency is declared, whatever possible cause should be investigated and the cause determined. The crew obviously felt that it was necessary to declare an emergency. I would praise them for declaring it. That doesn't mean that they were at fault. But it doesn't mean that they weren't at fault either. There could have been a problem with the aircraft. Or they may have had bad information about something, such as the weather,or some other factor (ATC?) which may have led them into a decision of continuing on when perhaps they shouldn't have. Or, it might be that someone on the flight deck may have made a mistake. All of these things have happened before. There have been aircraft that departed without the minimum fuel required on the aircraft when the crew failed to check it. (US Air). There have been others that ran out of fuel in the air and either landed in an emergency or crashed. (Hapag Lloyd A310, Vienna, Swiss SAAB 2000 at Berlin, Air Transat A330 over the Atlantic).
We are all subject to human error and the system is also not perfect. But I think that all factors should be looked at and then a solid lesson can be learned.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: England
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAN is an internationally recognised call to express an emergency situation. In one of my previous lives I was a Check Airman with a carrier that employed pilots from over 40 nations from all continents. There was no one who did not understand the application of this R/T call. If you have used CPDLC (datalink communications for the uninitiated) you will know that PAN is an available selection to be used anywhere in the world.
Having less fuel, or being dictated a course of action that will ensure that you will have less fuel than your plan shows you need, is worthy of an URGENCY message. Using any other terminology is passing the buck to the ATC controller to get him to guess/interpret the urgency of your situation.
It is ridiculous to criticise a pilot for getting into a situation where he needed to make the call. For example we have no way of knowing which airports in his alternate plan were subsequently denied to him, creating a rolling alternate (hence rolling minimum reserve plan) fuel plan requirement.
It is unrealistic for ATC centres/towers to have a multiplicity of emergency plans to deal with every possible emergency situation. None of us would appreciate having to get embroiled in long R/T discussions as to the type of ground emergency response we are likely to require for any given occurrence. That is assuming that fluent English is available to all involved. Hence life is made easy for us with a choice from two possible calls. Discussions and conferences with all types of agencies (ICAO, JAA, CAA, FAA, Disaster Co-ordination agencies etc) have come up with plans that cover possible scenarios. We as pilots do not need to get involved “on the day” to decide which part of any specific plan can be omitted. Heaven forbid that we would be expected to know what they might be. Of course the death of anyone as a result of emergency response is a tragedy. Realistically, however, that consideration does not have a place in our planning process. As someone pointed out, it is for the coroner to raise at the appropriate time.
Having less fuel, or being dictated a course of action that will ensure that you will have less fuel than your plan shows you need, is worthy of an URGENCY message. Using any other terminology is passing the buck to the ATC controller to get him to guess/interpret the urgency of your situation.
It is ridiculous to criticise a pilot for getting into a situation where he needed to make the call. For example we have no way of knowing which airports in his alternate plan were subsequently denied to him, creating a rolling alternate (hence rolling minimum reserve plan) fuel plan requirement.
It is unrealistic for ATC centres/towers to have a multiplicity of emergency plans to deal with every possible emergency situation. None of us would appreciate having to get embroiled in long R/T discussions as to the type of ground emergency response we are likely to require for any given occurrence. That is assuming that fluent English is available to all involved. Hence life is made easy for us with a choice from two possible calls. Discussions and conferences with all types of agencies (ICAO, JAA, CAA, FAA, Disaster Co-ordination agencies etc) have come up with plans that cover possible scenarios. We as pilots do not need to get involved “on the day” to decide which part of any specific plan can be omitted. Heaven forbid that we would be expected to know what they might be. Of course the death of anyone as a result of emergency response is a tragedy. Realistically, however, that consideration does not have a place in our planning process. As someone pointed out, it is for the coroner to raise at the appropriate time.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAN is an internationally recognised call to express an emergency situation. In one of my previous lives I was a Check Airman with a carrier that employed pilots from over 40 nations from all continents. There was no one who did not understand the application of this R/T call. If you have used CPDLC (datalink communications for the uninitiated) you will know that PAN is an available selection to be used anywhere in the world.
A nice idea which I'm sure is based on fact, but in reality - it is simply not the case.
I have witnessed/been involved in both "pan" and "mayday" scenarios over the years in European airspace and the pan call was simply met with puzzlement. I have also heard French ATC not understand a "mayday" over the bay of biscay. That one opened my eyes!
The manual often goes out of the window in alot of real world cases and I have concluded that the only way to get someone's attention is by shouting "mayday!"
Rgds
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Surrey UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much as I hate to admit that US ATC is in any way better than UK/ N Europe(!), their term "Minimum Fuel Advisory" is the equivalent of making a PAN call due possible reserve fuel consumption as per most UK operators.
It is clear and unambiguous that the nature of the "emergency" is fuel-related, the aeroplane is not going to drop out of the sky, and if priority treatment is given, the aircraft will make a safe and normal landing with no fallout, no blue flashing lights and no high adrenaline decsions to be made.
Worth a look?
It is clear and unambiguous that the nature of the "emergency" is fuel-related, the aeroplane is not going to drop out of the sky, and if priority treatment is given, the aircraft will make a safe and normal landing with no fallout, no blue flashing lights and no high adrenaline decsions to be made.
Worth a look?
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Situation is vs. Situation should be...
You Gimboid,
That is exactly the sort of thing I meant.
Victor 2, (Hi, I was KIa...)
Yes, the PAN call is the in place method. It is all we have at present but it has disadvantages (ie. blue lights) which is why I favour a new approach to the terminology - to be agreed to by all parties and put in the rule books.
I reckon JAA is the proper office for starting this, if enough people agree. And there is nothing wrong with looking to see how other authorities (FAA) deal with this. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
As for PAN internationally, there have been at least a couple of threads about this, which I am too lazy to look up just now - including one report by a 747 Capt (strangely enough also an ex Victor driver) last year, where his PAN call over Spain was not understood.
However that is not the reason for wanting a clear Fuel priority call in the books. I think more people would be ready to declare low predicted landing fuel, than would wish to make a PAN under present rules, with all that entails.
Greetings, FC.
That is exactly the sort of thing I meant.
Victor 2, (Hi, I was KIa...)
Yes, the PAN call is the in place method. It is all we have at present but it has disadvantages (ie. blue lights) which is why I favour a new approach to the terminology - to be agreed to by all parties and put in the rule books.
I reckon JAA is the proper office for starting this, if enough people agree. And there is nothing wrong with looking to see how other authorities (FAA) deal with this. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
As for PAN internationally, there have been at least a couple of threads about this, which I am too lazy to look up just now - including one report by a 747 Capt (strangely enough also an ex Victor driver) last year, where his PAN call over Spain was not understood.
However that is not the reason for wanting a clear Fuel priority call in the books. I think more people would be ready to declare low predicted landing fuel, than would wish to make a PAN under present rules, with all that entails.
Greetings, FC.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: out there looking in
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC recently tired to put me in the hold @ LGW after I diverted there. (You'd think it goes without saying that if I had any holding fuel I'd still be sitting over my destination!). I guess we were just another inbound aircraft to them and without declaring a PAN were treated as such. Opened my eyes anyway.
In the end to be fair they did give me (lengthy) vectors but it wasn't really playing the game......
In the end to be fair they did give me (lengthy) vectors but it wasn't really playing the game......
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Playing the game
That illustrates one of the other problems Bird,
If you divert you probably won't be the only one - the whole shooting match moves down the road with you. ATC then takes you in order...
A little bit more for Mum and kids isn't bad - though usually only the short range guys have the luxury of putting it on - on long range the TO weight is often limiting - and half of your additional fuel burns off anyway on a long trip (around 50kg, per ton per hour).
Anyway we are back to PAN calls or not for a low fuel situation.
FC.
If you divert you probably won't be the only one - the whole shooting match moves down the road with you. ATC then takes you in order...
A little bit more for Mum and kids isn't bad - though usually only the short range guys have the luxury of putting it on - on long range the TO weight is often limiting - and half of your additional fuel burns off anyway on a long trip (around 50kg, per ton per hour).
Anyway we are back to PAN calls or not for a low fuel situation.
FC.
