Southerly winds down there can really mess up your day. You really need good VIS to ba able to finisch the approaches in FUE and ACE with a legal landing, considering that oply 300 to 400 ft are lost while doing 1 NM, so I decided for myself: southerly winds and VIS lower then 5000 m: fueling to max landing. Also ATC is of no great help due to the lack of radar below 4000 ft. Controllers are so much used to working northerly landings that the situation is getting even worse and bless good we all do have TCAS, since two AC in the same race track happend not only once.

Rads,

so why did the Britannia declare a Mayday whilst in the hold, due to low on fuel, prior to then commencing 3 approaches, (including one to a shortish very wet runway with a 15 knot tailwind) 3 go-arounds and a diversion (with a bit of holding in between)?

Surely he would have done 1 approach, go-around and a
diversion and been OK? If he had spare fuel, maybe do 2 approaches and go-arounds and a diversion and been OK. Surely you would declare a mayday if you were on or below your legal minimum?

I could understand if he had already done 2 approaches and then declared a mayday due to now being on minimum fuel and diverted. But even then that would have meant he'd arrived with minimum fuel.

As someone mentioned earlier, most people diverted to LPA, which is usually the 2nd alternate and requires quite a bit more fuel than FUE, the 1st alternate.

Airbus Girl.

How do you know he made 3 approaches and all AFTER declaring a MAYDAY?

How do you know he only had min fuel?

In your first post you were gracious enough to admit that you didn't have the facts. You still don't & yet you persist in making innuendos as if they are the facts.

It may be a RUMOUR network, but it is also a PROFESSIONAL one. I suggest you start behaving as the latter.

Airbus girl,

Well done you're getting there :ok:

Was I the only one surprised at this remark.

If things are so bad that you have to declare a Mayday what on earth are you still doing holding?

The only reaon I can think of for not taking matters into your own hands would be if you knew for sure that others ahead of you were in a worse position or that you couldn't land for some other reason like a physically blocked runway. Bad weather counts for little if you have no fuel.

ManaAdaSystem, as far as London is concerned, a priority approach, expeditious approach, bit tight on fuel, someone not too well and all the other slightly wooly things mentioned by pilots mean absolutely nothing as to wether you get a delay or straight in. Unfortunately we are now in the situation where ATC simply HAVE to ask "are you declaring a PAN/MAYDAY?"

Yes, then no worries, striaght in, no delay etc.

No, enter the hold 15 to 20 minutes.

Personally, if the pilot is in any doubt, then the doubt itself should be enough to warrant a PAN.

I know for a fact that the mayday was declared prior to the 3 approaches and diversion - you should listen to the ATC tapes if you like.
No, the runway was not blocked.
There were others trying to get into ACE that day, but at the time of the mayday call Britannia was no.1 and only 2 other aircraft in the vicinity.
Everyone else had already bogged off to LPA or elsewhere.

No, I don't have all the facts, but I do have these.

I think we can all learn something from this and it will be interesting to read the CAA's comments.

Airbus Girl, read the FSR…oh I forgot you haven’t seen it and you weren’t there.

What you state as fact is only hearsay and speculation on your part…not very clever to try bluffing on a professional forum.

When you finally get into the left seat, I hope you will by then have learnt not to jump to conclusions…you never know, it might prevent you from shutting the wrong engine down someday.:(

Airbus Girl,

Ever heard the phrase 'when you're in a hole, stop digging?'

In my earlier post I challenged you to substantiate 2 claims; 1, that the MAYDAY was made prior to carrying out 3 approaches at destination & then a fourth at the alternate & 2, that they only 'obviously had minimum legal fuel' (your words, not mine).

You respond that you know for a fact that your first comment is a true record of the events.

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE.

I assume from your title that you fly on an Airbus of some kind. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that you don't work for Britannia - apart from a brief flirtation with A300s in the late 80s following the takeover of Orion, Brits have only operated Boeing jets.

Many readers of this post, perhaps even the crew involved, will however work for the airline concerned. As a result, it is most likely that they have read internal company publications and WILL KNOW THE FACTS.

You decline to answer the 2nd point. I wonder why? Has it now dawned on you that to have just min legal fuel, they would probably not have been able to carry out the number & type of approaches you claim they performed AND hold will considering their options?

Your comments are, at best, figments of an over excitable imagination and at worst, outright lies.

The only remark you make that can be taken as FACT is that you have not read any kind of report of the incident.

Backtrack.

as appear to be previous posts by him!

This is in brief reply to "Airbus Girl"s comments.

Backtrack was correct when he says that some of the readers on this forum have access to the information about what really happened. I happen to be one of these.

I am not going to list the details because I would not be comfortable doing that when there is an investigation going on. However, I do feel that there is a need to clear things up a little with regard to the allegations being made by "Airbus Girl".

I can say with absolute certainty that nothing Airbus Girl has stated is correct. Airbus Girl may think (she?) has the information but whatever it is that she has is simply not an accurate representation of what actually happened.

Airbus Girl is not credible and should be ignored.

Zippy2004, is the investigation internal or external and in either case once the facts have been established will they be made available to the wider aviation community? As I implied at the outset my interest in all this is to avoid getting into the same situation as this unfortunate crew.

Doubtless there are lessons here for us all and I hope those of us operating to The Canaries regularly will be able to benefit from the inquiry.

ATB.

Bernoulli, it depends on whether your organisation receives a copy of the internal publication, I suspect that you won’t. Similarly we don’t receive publications from other carriers operating in the UK.

If there are lessons to be learned from this incident, then I’m sure the relevant authorities will take steps to disseminate the information at the appropriate time.