Vistara UK944 lands with 200kg fuel
Can you imagine he landed after busting minimums. Probably instant dismissal with the half-witted Indian press lynching the crew in public.
Like has been said before, the entire system in India is broken. Idiots with violent tendencies (fighting with their colleagues) and clowns with no ability to fly (landing gear extended for 2 hours) make it to the top because of money and connections. Inevitably, this results in a system and environment where good people and their good decisions and judgement take a back seat.
Like has been said before, the entire system in India is broken. Idiots with violent tendencies (fighting with their colleagues) and clowns with no ability to fly (landing gear extended for 2 hours) make it to the top because of money and connections. Inevitably, this results in a system and environment where good people and their good decisions and judgement take a back seat.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However in this incident the weather at destination packed up direct routing to diversion wasn't possible due to weather around and alternate vis also dropped below minimum. The only decision could have been land, maybe Auto land bursting minimum or divert to another place reaching below minimum fuel. If there's an error it's in decision making not due to lack of skill. So it's OK not to ground them till the finding comes out.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When called back by ATC they were 37nm from Lucknow....and they landed with 200kg of fuel.
They were 58nm from Allahabad so extrapolating would have landed with....well fair to say would never have gotten to make the approach.
Immediately on making the G/A they went from MIN FUEL - which means nothing, just advice with NO NEED for ATC to assist/improve track miles - to MAYDAY FUEL so WILL be landing with less than 30 min of fuel total remaining.
The decision is made to divert using that 30 min total remaining fuel just to try and get to the "new" alternate let alone having to burn more fuel when configuring for an approach.
They would have been lucky to get near the airport before flaming out, unimaginable they would have any remaining fuel once configured.
In making their decision they decide to track away from an airport equipped with an ILS to another airport with uncertain weather (as shown already metars can change rapidly in India).
Suspects this will be an incident for discussion in CRM/Command Initiative courses for a long time to come.
They were 58nm from Allahabad so extrapolating would have landed with....well fair to say would never have gotten to make the approach.
Immediately on making the G/A they went from MIN FUEL - which means nothing, just advice with NO NEED for ATC to assist/improve track miles - to MAYDAY FUEL so WILL be landing with less than 30 min of fuel total remaining.
The decision is made to divert using that 30 min total remaining fuel just to try and get to the "new" alternate let alone having to burn more fuel when configuring for an approach.
They would have been lucky to get near the airport before flaming out, unimaginable they would have any remaining fuel once configured.
In making their decision they decide to track away from an airport equipped with an ILS to another airport with uncertain weather (as shown already metars can change rapidly in India).
Suspects this will be an incident for discussion in CRM/Command Initiative courses for a long time to come.
At a certain point you better make a bold decision instead of running out of options. In both cases the crews luck did not run out but it was close. A Gimli glider in poor weather conditions has a very predictable outcome.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite the headline and then comes some clarity from Avherald as usual: Incident: Vistara A20N at Lucknow on Jul 15th 2019, landed with just 260kg of fuel remaining
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note the avherald report is the DGCA letter with a COMPANY note added.
The COMPANY states the drop in visibility made a "safe landing impossible".
NO!
It made a landing at or above the stated minimas unlikely (actual vis at minima Vs stated minima 5 minutes earlier) but no reason why a SAFE landing wouldn't have been achieved from a stable ILS approach.
The decision to leave Lucknow having already declared MAYDAY FUEL a separate issue for consideration.
The COMPANY states the drop in visibility made a "safe landing impossible".
NO!
It made a landing at or above the stated minimas unlikely (actual vis at minima Vs stated minima 5 minutes earlier) but no reason why a SAFE landing wouldn't have been achieved from a stable ILS approach.
The decision to leave Lucknow having already declared MAYDAY FUEL a separate issue for consideration.
Sometimes the system plays a huge role, two 737's in trouble.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577054...-100-final.pdf
At 1002, Velocity 1384 transmitted that they were on a 4 NM (7 km) final for the RNAV GNSS approach. At 1004, as they were not visual with the runway, the crew initiated a missed approach from 132 ft AGL. The FO reported that as they commenced the missed approach, it was possible to confirm that they were aligned with the runway by looking directly down. At 1012, ATC initiated a distress phase.The aircraft was positioned for a second approach, during which the cabin crew were briefed and prepared for an emergency landing, briefing the passengers to brace accordingly. A t 1014, Velocity 1384 landed at Mildura in foggy conditions with fuel below the required reserves.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note the avherald report is the DGCA letter with a COMPANY note added.
The COMPANY states the drop in visibility made a "safe landing impossible".
NO!
It made a landing at or above the stated minimas unlikely (actual vis at minima Vs stated minima 5 minutes earlier) but no reason why a SAFE landing wouldn't have been achieved from a stable ILS approach.
The decision to leave Lucknow having already declared MAYDAY FUEL a separate issue for consideration.
The COMPANY states the drop in visibility made a "safe landing impossible".
NO!
It made a landing at or above the stated minimas unlikely (actual vis at minima Vs stated minima 5 minutes earlier) but no reason why a SAFE landing wouldn't have been achieved from a stable ILS approach.
The decision to leave Lucknow having already declared MAYDAY FUEL a separate issue for consideration.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I get that.
Equally surely they cannot support the proposition that fuel exhaustion will lead to a safe/safer outcome??
As an earlier post said in regulatory talk/think they'd be happier for the aircraft to run out of fuel and crash rather than end up safely on a runway having broken minima's.
MIN FUEL call made - check. MAYDAY FUEL call made - check. Aircraft runs out of fuel, crashes and people die - well what more could the Flight Crew have done??
To finish it off - sure MAYDAY FUEL would count as one of those "Land ASAP" situations.
So: an airport you are presently holding over Vs an airport you MAY not have the fuel to get to; perhaps the regulator in their wisdom would like to publicly nominate which THEY think would be more suitable and why??
Wonder if the passengers on board would agree!
Equally surely they cannot support the proposition that fuel exhaustion will lead to a safe/safer outcome??
As an earlier post said in regulatory talk/think they'd be happier for the aircraft to run out of fuel and crash rather than end up safely on a runway having broken minima's.
MIN FUEL call made - check. MAYDAY FUEL call made - check. Aircraft runs out of fuel, crashes and people die - well what more could the Flight Crew have done??
To finish it off - sure MAYDAY FUEL would count as one of those "Land ASAP" situations.
So: an airport you are presently holding over Vs an airport you MAY not have the fuel to get to; perhaps the regulator in their wisdom would like to publicly nominate which THEY think would be more suitable and why??
Wonder if the passengers on board would agree!
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I get that.
Equally surely they cannot support the proposition that fuel exhaustion will lead to a safe/safer outcome??
As an earlier post said in regulatory talk/think they'd be happier for the aircraft to run out of fuel and crash rather than end up safely on a runway having broken minima's.
MIN FUEL call made - check. MAYDAY FUEL call made - check. Aircraft runs out of fuel, crashes and people die - well what more could the Flight Crew have done??
To finish it off - sure MAYDAY FUEL would count as one of those "Land ASAP" situations.
So: an airport you are presently holding over Vs an airport you MAY not have the fuel to get to; perhaps the regulator in their wisdom would like to publicly nominate which THEY think would be more suitable and why??
Wonder if the passengers on board would agree!
Equally surely they cannot support the proposition that fuel exhaustion will lead to a safe/safer outcome??
As an earlier post said in regulatory talk/think they'd be happier for the aircraft to run out of fuel and crash rather than end up safely on a runway having broken minima's.
MIN FUEL call made - check. MAYDAY FUEL call made - check. Aircraft runs out of fuel, crashes and people die - well what more could the Flight Crew have done??
To finish it off - sure MAYDAY FUEL would count as one of those "Land ASAP" situations.
So: an airport you are presently holding over Vs an airport you MAY not have the fuel to get to; perhaps the regulator in their wisdom would like to publicly nominate which THEY think would be more suitable and why??
Wonder if the passengers on board would agree!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t know how persisting the bad weather can be in India but cancelling alternate and commit to land at destination might have been the safest choice in that case. Diverting with zero extra? Dangerous game IMHO.
Why no second try?
Change of runway?
But, I wasn't there and are not familiar with DEL anymore.
So just asking.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SONICBOOM et al
You're in a position where you can either;
- hang around and shoot another approach and decide what YOU will do to get in or
- divert to somewhere else and hope you can get there on fumes
and you want to talk about how the regulator "..might have done better...".
People are going to live or die - and you want to talk about regulatory theoreticals!
Really??
You're in a position where you can either;
- hang around and shoot another approach and decide what YOU will do to get in or
- divert to somewhere else and hope you can get there on fumes
and you want to talk about how the regulator "..might have done better...".
People are going to live or die - and you want to talk about regulatory theoreticals!
Really??
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SONICBOOM et al
You're in a position where you can either;
- hang around and shoot another approach and decide what YOU will do to get in or
- divert to somewhere else and hope you can get there on fumes
and you want to talk about how the regulator "..might have done better...".
People are going to live or die - and you want to talk about regulatory theoreticals!
Really??
You're in a position where you can either;
- hang around and shoot another approach and decide what YOU will do to get in or
- divert to somewhere else and hope you can get there on fumes
and you want to talk about how the regulator "..might have done better...".
People are going to live or die - and you want to talk about regulatory theoreticals!
Really??
But I guess that if for every 100.000 flights one screws up and land on vapours then it's good enough for the statistics.
If, and I say if there are flaws in the system they need to be tackled so that the same mistakes are not repeated. In aviation there must be a fail proof system as consistent as possible and safety nets need to be placed where there is an identified risk. The regulations allow me to start a flight with minimum flight plan fuel and 0 extra fuel even with crap weather because a) I have contingency b) I have 1 or more alternate depending on circumstances. The regulations allow me to start a diversion right a minimum diversion fuel and land at my alternate with 30 min fuel (EU OPS) by following exactly my flight plan route. Are we doing this on a day to day scenario ? Of course not, because we assess the threats of bad weather, load extra fuel and use it wisely. Is this system fail proof ? Not at all, especially because we aim everyday on reducing the amount of fuel we carry by reducing contingencies, planning shortest routes flying through all sorts of weather, etc..
But I guess that if for every 100.000 flights one screws up and land on vapours then it's good enough for the statistics.
But I guess that if for every 100.000 flights one screws up and land on vapours then it's good enough for the statistics.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...er-of-flights/
In an emergency, the commander may take action he considers necessary to ensure the safety of the flight including breaking minimums, however he must be able to justify his actions and will get a grilling from the experts who have had days to analyse a decision he had to take in minutes whilst under considerable pressure.
Breaking minimums or continuing to land from an unstabilized approach may be the safest option in some situations, but expect to have to explain how you got into that predicament in the first place, ie why didn't you divert earlier whilst you still had the fuel ? Some pilots would go around with minimum fuel and weather closing in simply because they were slightly outside the stabilized criteria at 1000' with a 4000m runway in front of them.
Breaking minimums or continuing to land from an unstabilized approach may be the safest option in some situations, but expect to have to explain how you got into that predicament in the first place, ie why didn't you divert earlier whilst you still had the fuel ? Some pilots would go around with minimum fuel and weather closing in simply because they were slightly outside the stabilized criteria at 1000' with a 4000m runway in front of them.
Only half a speed-brake
EDLB, fair call on the rate though I suspect it was never meant to withstand the scrutiny of real mathematics - just a figure of speech. Kindly note that data on how many arrive to land with less than FRSV are not available for review, thus we do not really know how bad it is. I assume the G.g reference was also not to be taken literally.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it‘s not. With approaching 40 Million flights per year this number would mean one Gimli glider per day.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...er-of-flights/
Only half a speed-brake
I like to think not many divert at ALTN + FRSV level - after a go-around. If so, then without shooting the approach first thus carrying approx 12 mins more.
For the European operators, the more conservative decision to commit takes precedence, if WX, not a factor.
For the European operators, the more conservative decision to commit takes precedence, if WX, not a factor.