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

A320 landed with 200kg of fuel remaining

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

A320 landed with 200kg of fuel remaining

Old 6th Nov 2022, 16:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5 above the Equator, 75 left of Greenwich
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A320 landed with 200kg of fuel remaining

How come this hasn't been discussed here?

https://avherald.com/h?article=4ffdb8d6&opt=0
Escape Path is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2022, 16:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
VivaColombia Airbus A320-200N, registration HK-5378 performing flight VH-8332 from Cali to Riohacha (Colombia), was descending towards Riohacha Airport when the crew aborted the approach at about FL180 and entered a hold for about 30 minutes. The aircraft subsequently climbed to FL370 and was enroute to divert to Medellin when the crew again needed to abort the approach to Medellin at about 15,000 feet. The aircraft climbed back to FL210, the crew declared emergency, and diverted to Monteira (Colombia) where the aircraft finally landed on runway 32 about 2:15 hours after aborting the approach to Riohacha and about 3:20 hours after departure from Cali. The aircraft had about 100kg in its left fuel tank and about 110 kg of fuel in its right hand tank, the totalizer showed 200kg of fuel remaining.

The airline reported the aircraft needed to abort the approach to Riohacha due to bad weather and diverted to Medellin (Rio Negro). While the aircraft was approaching Medellin weather also impacted the aircraft and made a landing impossible. The crew therefore diverted to Monteira where the aircraft landed safely. The aircraft had more than 180 minutes of fuel available for the 80 minutes flight.

On Oct 27th 2022 Colombia's DIACC reported: "During the arrival to MDE terminal area, the flight crew listened to other aircraft on the frequency reporting missed approaches at MDE due to meteorological conditions; after a couple of circuits in holding, the flight crew decided to proceed to Los Garzones Airport (MTR) in Monteria (SKMR) as alternate. While enroute to MTR, at approximately 18:40 UTC, the flight crew declared MAYDAY FUEL EMERGENCY - SQUAWKING 7700. The flight landed at approximately 19:07 UTC in MTR and it taxied to the assigned parking position without further incident. According to information retrieved from FDA, the flight landed with 282 kg of fuel and it had 236 kg remaining when engines were shut-down." The occurrence was rated a serious incident and is being investigated by Colombia's DIACC.
I wonder how much fuel was actually onboard as the gauging has its own inbuilt design errors?
For an A320 Family aircraft, the instrumental tolerance on the ground is calculated as follows:
(1% of current FOB + 1% max possible FOB for this aircraft)As an illustration, for an A320 aircraft, if there are 5 tons left in the aircraft, the maximum normal tolerance value is:
(5000kg (current FOB) * 1% + 20000kg (max FOB)* 1% ) = 250kgNote: The FQI system is designed in such a way that the lower the fuel quantity in the tank, the more accurate the fuel indication.
The FQI system is calibrated on ground during manufacturing and its accuracy (as per the formula above) will remain the same throughout the operational life of the aircraft.

tubby linton is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2022, 16:37
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 6,534
Received 66 Likes on 42 Posts
This appears to be an illustration of why having that fuel reserve is so important. Two diversions in bad weather.
... where the aircraft finally landed on runway 32 about 2:15 hours after aborting the approach to Riohacha and about 3:20 hours after departure from Cali.
... The aircraft had more than 180 minutes of fuel available for the 80 minutes flight.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 7th Nov 2022, 18:52
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Dodo Island
Posts: 103
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In this occasion they seemed to have planned for possible adverse conditions but things got really bad. I'd file it in the 'freak' incidents category. Happy everyone walked from it.
zambonidriver is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2022, 23:51
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kiwiland
Posts: 308
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've been in that situation. Departed with legally required alternate fuel, and a bit more.... but some unforecast weather at alternate left very few options.

This is a great outcome, much better than forced landing somewhere, with dry tanks!

Not really with discussing even
goeasy is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2022, 02:09
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Posts: 3,718
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Isn't this exactly what is supposed to happen when you run out of options? There is a final reserve for a reason.
rudestuff is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2022, 07:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,770
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by rudestuff
Isn't this exactly what is supposed to happen when you run out of options? There is a final reserve for a reason.
Exactly. Its not how much fuel you begin with (although they seem to have had more than plan), its what you do when it starts running out, through circumstances outside of your control. They made everyone aware of their problem then got it onto the ground somewhere safe, without being too distracted by the fuel state. Job well done IMO in a very rare situation thats going to happen to someone at sometime.
FullWings is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2022, 09:23
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Being committed to a landing is always a "nice" aspect and good for the bar- and grandchildren-stories, many years later.
WideScreen is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2022, 22:23
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 71
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
There must have been really bad weather on the northern coast.
I'd have thought Baranquilla or Cartagena would have been better options.

WingNut60 is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2022, 07:30
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
This is why I sometimes wonder about battery powered aircraft.
Peter47 is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2022, 10:38
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Exactly why the fuel reserve requirements are too lax. An extra 15 minutes final reserve would be much more comfortable.

I suspect a lot of overrun on wet runway incidents are due to the pressure on pilots of having minimal fuel resulting in them deciding to do a marginal approach.

Whos to say that a thunderstorm wont be at your alternate or that it has fogged in? The amended forecast?

punkalouver is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2022, 09:48
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by punkalouver
Exactly why the fuel reserve requirements are too lax. An extra 15 minutes final reserve would be much more comfortable.
You do realise that carrying extra fuel means burning more fuel to carry it and thus increasing costs? There is always a trade-off between safety and cost. Also more fuel means more weight which actually decreases safety a bit, particularly on take-off and landing.



procede is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2022, 17:31
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by procede
You do realise that carrying extra fuel means burning more fuel to carry it and thus increasing costs? There is always a trade-off between safety and cost. Also more fuel means more weight which actually decreases safety a bit, particularly on take-off and landing.
Yes, I realize that that it requires more fuel and therefore costs more money. Just like having alternate fuel plus final reserve plus contingency fuel already requires more fuel and cost.

Will extra weight really make a difference for takeoff. One will just adjust their maximum thrust reduction to achieve required performance.

An extra 15 minutes of fuel on a typical landing would really have more than a negligible safety effect? I doubt it.

One really should ask themselves whether it really makes safe sense to be legal and within accepted norms to land at your alternate with 30 minutes of fuel based on reduced power holding speed at that airport.

Not nice when the weather went down at a major hub and everybody is scrambling to get to those not so busy alternates.

Last edited by punkalouver; 21st Nov 2022 at 22:28.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2022, 06:21
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peter47
This is why I sometimes wonder about battery powered aircraft.
If a battery powered aircraft has, say, 450kg* of batteries onboard, it will still have 450kg of batteries on board when those run out of juice.
* = https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/29...nergy-density/
kristofera is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.