Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Chinese Pilot refused to give way to Qatar Aw. Emergency

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Chinese Pilot refused to give way to Qatar Aw. Emergency

Old 1st Sep 2011, 20:19
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder what the USA would do in this situ
The most common FAA response to a complaint of this nature against a pilots actions would be to initiate an investigation to determine whether a violation of regulations in fact occurred. ATC voice and radar records would be reviewed, interviews conducted and an initial finding made as to whether to proceed with formal investigation or drop the matter. Emergency revocation of a US pilot certificate is possible with certain kinds of violations and circumstances.

Pilots flying other than US registered aircraft can typically expect the initial findings and supporting evidence of violation or deviation to be forwarded to the aviation authority for the state having jurisdiction over the pilot and/or the aircraft. Under agreements with other ICAO signatories, this is similar to what US pilots can expect in case of a flight deviation or suspected flight rule violation while operating within international airspace or within the airspace of a great many countries around the world.

These things happen sometimes and international agreements exist to deal with it. It's sometimes unfortunate that countries don't agree in all matters, but that's the way things go.
westhawk is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2011, 22:09
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 91
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Give way............

I was tought a basic rule of the air that in essence, states that the
stronger gives way to the weaker.
Therefore a power plane gives way to a glider, balloon etc. By extention,
an aircraft having sufficient fuel to "give way" and make an overshoot should indeed do that, so the one who has stated "low fuel" can make an immediate landing.
I also presume that IF a "low fuel" position means that an overshoot is
impossible, the PIC would have declared a "Mayday".
The Korean is obviously and blatendly at fault, leave alone the complete lack of courtesy and airmanship.
Yankee Whisky is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2011, 22:18
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Above the Transition Level
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Without any ATC transcripts it's still very difficult to make a complete judgement for us.
For sure there's no excuse to disregard ATC instructions but in a region where ATC comms in english is not necessarily the primary form of communications there could be elements of misunderstanding or non-communication.
ElitePilot is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2011, 22:41
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fujairah
Age: 59
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The high handed verdict and sentence has been handed the Korean pilot and his first officer. We may not know why or understand why they had not gone around if ATC had ordered them to. However, taking account into the Korean mindset, any missed approach would have cause him to get into a low fuel situation. He was not articulate or had the presence of mind to declare that doing a missed approach may cause him to be a " mayday " case himself. Koreans are basically silent types who do not simply broadcast their problems UNTIL ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

In his mind, he can't see how by going around he could really facilitate that much faster the Qatari plane can get to the ground. Given the fact that the A320 is slower but not by that much unless the B777-300ER was making a flapless approach at flap up speed to short finals.

There was probabaly a communication problem. ATC ZSSS should have simply order him or vectored him away without all the unintelligible Chinglish mutterings; I am certain the Juneyao crew would have complied or at least declare their intentions to avoid their own possible fuel " mayday " had they have to go around.
Akbar Al Sabah is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2011, 08:14
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: JAMAICA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
QR CEO

I am sure the QR CEO has already fired the June Yao Captain after questioning the FO and the Cabin Crew about the Captain.
johnnyringo42 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2011, 08:16
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: JAMAICA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agreed

I like what you said and totally agreed about the ATC instruction that shouldve been given
johnnyringo42 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2011, 02:45
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: asia
Age: 52
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

I would like to ask you.if you are interceptting loc 18nm from the airport and QR 5 mile behind and higher than your ALT and he call for mayday.who has a priority?

I heard from friend flying in china and this capt instructed in english once rest of atc com was done by all in chinese.he tryed to talk with atc in Eng,but there were no reply in Eng from ATC.
fcuandmcdu is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2011, 02:56
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Preswick
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If he was on the loc 18nm, ATC ZSSS could easily have just vectored him off and let the QR through. There are a lot of hidden unknowns.

Looking at the fuel remaining for both aircrafts with the Juneyao A320 having only 5 minutes more remaining endurance than the QR B777, it was certain that had the Juneyao aircraft gone around, he would have been the next one declaring fuel emergency. Then another aircraft would probably have to give way to him and there would have been a domino effect of maydays from succeeding aircrafts.
Kalistan is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2011, 05:30
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: hELL'S kitchen
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are there any links to the actual ATC tapes of this event?
MIGHTY 8 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2011, 08:50
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was in a long line up going into SFO in a 737 one day which ate up my alternate fuel but diverting would use as much fuel as continuing so I think even though I hadn't declared minimum fuel I would have not gone around for an emergency declared by another. I have never had to declare minimum fuel in my whole career but this time was on the edge of doing so. He probably was in the same situation.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2011, 09:57
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have never had to declare minimum fuel in my whole career but this time was on the edge of doing so.
Usually numbers don't lie ... all you need is total fuel quantity, fuel flow and basic math knowledge ... and it shouldn't be such a hard decision making process for a mayday call!

Having said that ...

... since the level of readiness changes from pilot to pilot and varies with different scenarios ... your Physiology, Physical Status and Motivation may have played some tricks on you ....

... so sensations, emotions and other non-normal feelings are to be consider as early warning of a worse situation to come!

When you have all the numbers ... a good rule of thumb is to keep your bravery for next landing ... and you'll never get in trouble!

You can always cancel a mayday call if you need to!
Non Zero is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2011, 11:37
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So since I landed with legal 45 minute reserve fuel I should have decided if it was 44 minutes or 46 minutes to start doing mayday calls? Then if I get a shorter turn on I cancel it? I'm sure bay approach would be impressed with my distraction so I could keep recalculating my landing fuel.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2011, 12:45
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ... on an island!
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And if you are single, add 5 minutes for mum and an other 5 minutes for granny. If married with kids, self explanatory math!
You can find those number in volume one, limitations ... human limitations ... we are not computer yet!
Bottom line, it is permissible (highly recommended) to make mistake on the safe side. Mistakes on the other side usually lead to a bigger problem!
169west is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2011, 13:06
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: wyoming
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"During the entire process, air traffic controllers commanded flight HO1112 to give way six times in the space of seven minutes, but the flight crew rejected this each time," said the CAAC.
The 777 eventually landed safely after air traffic controllers employed "other measures", the CAAC added.
Inspections of both aircraft after landing showed the 777 had a remaining fuel weight of 5,200kg (11,500lb) and a flying time of 18min. The Juneyao A320 had a fuel weight of 2,900kg and a flying time of 42min.
Calling the Juneyao flight crew's behaviour a "serious violation" of aviation regulations, the CAAC said the crew had violated the "career integrity" of pilots.
It said the flight crew of the Qatar 777 had acted appropriately, but the pilots had failed to gauge the aircraft's fuel levels accurately. The CAAC has referred the matter to the Qatari civil aviation authorities.
It seems the Qatar crew is not out of the woods yet. The CAAC has clearly forwarded the case to the Qatar DGCA for further review and possible actions against the crew. The Korean pilot has been banned from China indefinitely but the Korean CAA could also take action against the pilot if they hold a Korean license. I think most pilots would cringe at the prospect of their CAA doing another inspection. The Qatar crew might end up with license revocations or administrative punishment. Serious implications for all pilots operating in Chinese airspace to consider.

Last edited by WYOMINGPILOT; 12th Sep 2011 at 23:54.
WYOMINGPILOT is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2011, 18:49
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fujairah
Age: 59
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a small correction, 5200kgs of juice on a B777-300 ER equates to about 43 minutes endurance with flaps 1.

From my armchair, it looks more like a communication problem with the Chinese f/o saying stuff to ATC which the Korean skipper probably knew nothing about. There are a lot of smart arse RHSeaters in all airlines, especially those who work in their national carriers using their own mother tongue in communications with ATC. ATC ZSSS should have just vector him away.

This incident will probably scare off a lot of Korean pilots from applying to Juneyao, Air China Cargo, Yangtze.
Akbar Al Sabah is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2011, 17:18
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: wyoming
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes you are correct. Add the 30 mins. Final reserve Fuel to the quoted figures so Qatar 777 had 48 total mins. of fuel and Juneyao had 72 mins. of fuel remaining.
WYOMINGPILOT is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2011, 18:18
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Age: 60
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While the punishment may seem harsh, there is no doubt that the pilot's of Juneyao were fundamentally wrong in disobeying an ATC instruction. Unless the safety of their own flight was in jeopardy by following such an instruction they had no choice but to go-around and make room for QATAR. Did the Juneyao crew factor the possibility that on landing, they might blow a tire (whatever) and block the runway thereby complicating the emergency even further? Probably not. What is the appropriate punishment? Who knows. I will say this however, the Captain and First Officer will probably never make the same mistake again.
Flying Phoenix is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2011, 10:51
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In China , they are still in early last century , so they believe that people`s learning is directly proporcional to the punishment applied.

Regs state that a PIC should declare an emergency fuel everytime they are already below minimuns or when they believe he will be below minimuns as he gets the field.

The chinese ATC is so bad that sometimes is impossible to understand what is the sequence , or what is the next ATC`s move. In this cenario , declaring an emergency is a very preventive action against chinese ATC imagination and a way to guarantee that you will land within legal limits.

It`s important to remember that whatever happens , just in a very very clear mistake they (chinese) will admit their ATC is bad , messy and they are very poor in english as long as something goes out of the standards.

I work in china and for sure they are already preparing something no sense against the foreign pilots. Something like CAAC checks , etc.

They become histeric when something happens. Indeed ,I strongly believe they will finally como to the conclusion that flying is too dangerous and they will return to trains, cars and waggons.
A-3TWENTY is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2011, 20:16
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They become histeric when something happens. Indeed ,I strongly believe they will finally como to the conclusion that flying is too dangerous and they will return to trains, cars and waggons.
Trains? After the recent accident they better evaluate a safer form of transportation!

The entire world is closely watching China for a lot of different reason ... and they are striving to look good with obvious non-sense consequences ...

... non sense against the foreign pilots. Something like CAAC checks , etc.
Non Zero is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2011, 21:32
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Preswick
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lay off bashing the Chinese

China is growing and developing now just like the US, Europe and the rest of the first world some half a century back. Back then the pollution, ridiculous laws and practices, strife and disorganisation, chaos and bogeyman politice etc in the first world were absolutely mind bongling from today's perpective. China is going through the whole process albeit at an accelerated pace and watched closely by the greedy, bigotted and hegemonic western powers. The QE2 meant to dilute value of Chinese foreign reserves, all sorts of tricks and procedural barriers to stymie its growth and influence. Massive disinformation and misinformation about it's rise in military spending, denial of sales of high tech stuff to China, massive psych war campaigns to demonise and malign China so much so that because the whole world mainstream media is English based the " sheeple " of the world just swallow all these line, hook and sinker. The " sheeple " then join in the Chinese bashing bandwagon without questioning their own sorry selves' motivation being influenced by green serpentine jealousy and utter herd mentality.

Being from the subcontinent I am often flabbergasted by my country's politicians' utter buffonery in echoing China bashing rhetoric instead of learning constructively from that nation's difficult rise in the face of total and absolute sabotage from the western world.
Kalistan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.