Chinese Pilot refused to give way to Qatar Aw. Emergency
 

Well ... its what this peculiar lil' story here tells us »»»

Air Disaster Narrowly Averted in China: Report | The Jakarta Globe

That's a just culture at work right there...:ugh:

Courtesy of Arabian Supply Chain
 

Qatar Airways declares emergency on China flight
by ASC Staff on Aug 25, 2011

Qatar Airways declared emergency on a flight to Shanghai’s Pudong Airport this month, due to fuel levels on its Boeing 777-300 being low, it has been reported.

The national carrier was performing flight QR-888 from Doha on 13th August 2011 when the incident occurred, according to Aviation Herald.

Due to weather conditions, the aircraft needed to enter a holding around 14:40L and it was subsequently diverted to Shanghai’s Hongqiao Airport after fuel levels become low.

However, a Juneyao Airlines flight was approaching the airport at the same time and crew therefore received an Air Traffic Control instruction to accommodate the Qatar Airways emergency by aborting their approach.

The instructions were apparent refused and Juneyao Airlines continued their approach for a safe landing, forcing Qatar Airways to delay its own landing.

Aviation Herald reports that the Middle Eastern airline was then able to land and later continued to Pudong, reaching with a total delay of nine hours.

China's Civil Aviation Authority (CAAC) has launched an investigation and pledged: "Verified violations will be severely dealt with according to law."

I guess we don't know the true facts. Does "aborting their approach" mean at some point on final approach, or further out? How come the Qatar flight just suddenly appeared on the scene? If it was behind the other flight I don't understand what the fuss was about. There should have been advance warning to ATC of an aircraft with severe fuel shortage so that the approach sequence could have been arranged accordingly.

I wonder how much fuel the Juneyao Airlines had in the tanks when it landed.

I suspect it will have less airborne time than the Qatar aircraft.

I Agree with HEATHROW DIRECTOR,

I'm pretty sure the airplane wouldn't have appeared from out of nowhere.

Have a feeling that there is a tad bit more to this than meets the ear.

Regardless, i'm sure the 45mins FR would have kicked in anyway, right? If need be? :)

Interesting.

My mate operates for a Chinese carrier and it sounds plausible to me given the stories I've heard! I guess we don't have all the facts though.

"The pilot of the Qatar plane said it had just five minutes’ worth of fuel left after it was diverted from Shanghai, the Global Times newspaper reported, adding that a disastrous accident was only narrowly averted.

"

Incident: Qatar B773 and Juneyao A320 near Shanghai on Aug 13th 2011, fuel emergency or not

By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Aug 24th 2011 20:19Z, last updated Wednesday, Aug 24th 2011 20:19Z
A Qatar Airways Boeing 777-300, registration A7-BAC performing flight QR-888 from Doha (Qatar) to Shanghai (China), needed to enter a holding around 14:40L (06:40Z) while on approach to Shanghai's Pudong Airport due to weather. The crew subsequently decided to divert to Shanghai's Hongqiao Airport at 15:10L and declared emergency due to being low on fuel.

A Juneyao Airlines Airbus A320-200, flight HO-1112 from Shenzhen to Shanghai Hongquiao (China), was on approach to Hongqiao Airport, when Air Traffic Control instructed the crew to abort the approach in order to accomodate the emergency of QR-888. The crew, without requesting priority or declaring emergency, refused the instructions and continued their approach for a safe landing forcing ATC to delay the Boeing 777-300.

Flight QR-888 landed safely on Shanghai's Hongqiao Airport at 15:37L following the Airbus. The aircraft later continued to Pudong reaching their destination with a delay of 9 hours.

China's Civil Aviation Authority (CAAC) reported on Aug 24th that QR-888 declared emergency due to fuel shortage while waiting for approach to Pudong and diverted to Hongqiao. Air Traffic Control issued instructions to Juneyao's flight 1112 to give way to the Qatar Boeing, the crew however did not comply with the instructions forcing the controllers to re-arrange the landing sequence. The CAAC opened an investigation and pledged: "Verified violations will be severely dealt with according to law."

A briefing circling in China's aviation industry suggests that the Qatar Boeing 777 landed with 5 tons of fuel remaining, the Juneyao Airbus A320 with 2.9 tons of fuel remaining.

Metars Pudong:
ZSPD 130900Z 24008G13MPS 210V270 9999 -TSRA SQ SCT030CB 29/23 Q1005 BECMG FM0910 33007G12MPS +TSRA SQ
ZSPD 130830Z VRB01MPS 9999 TS FEW030CB 29/22 Q1002 BECMG TL0930 20005MPS TSRA
ZSPD 130800Z 32008G13MPS 9999 TS SCT016 SCT030CB 27/21 Q1003 BECMG TL0915 22005MPS -SHRA
ZSPD 130730Z VRB03MPS 9999 -TSRA SCT016 SCT030CB 29/23 Q1003 BECMG TL0900 22005MPS NSW
ZSPD 130700Z 14006MPS 9999 TS SCT030 SCT030CB 32/25 Q1003 BECMG TL0830 NSW
ZSPD 130630Z 15005MPS 120V180 8000 SCT026 FEW026TCU 33/25 Q1003 WS RWY17R NOSIG
ZSPD 130600Z 14007MPS 8000 SCT026 FEW026TCU 33/25 Q1003 NOSIG
ZSPD 130530Z 17005MPS 8000 SCT026 FEW026TCU 32/26 Q1003 NOSIG
ZSPD 130500Z 17007MPS 7000 SCT026 FEW026TCU 32/26 Q1003 NOSIG
ZSPD 130430Z 16006MPS 7000 SCT026 32/26 Q1003 NOSIG
ZSPD 130400Z 19004MPS 150V270 7000 SCT023 33/25 Q1004 NOSIG
ZSPD 130330Z 21003MPS 150V290 7000 SCT023 FEW023TCU 33/24 Q1004 NOSIG

Metars Hongqiao:
ZSSS 130900Z VRB01MPS CAVOK 25/24 Q1005 RETSRA NOSIG
ZSSS 130830Z 21007MPS 160V240 1600 R18L/0800VP2000D R18R/1000VP2000D +TSRA BKN026CB 25/23 Q1004 BECMG TL0840 TSRA
ZSSS 130800Z 12007MPS 9999 -TSRA SCT030CB 29/21 Q1002 BECMG TL0840 TSRA
ZSSS 130730Z 18007MPS 8000 SCT030 32/24 Q1002 NOSIG
ZSSS 130700Z 22005MPS 9999 FEW030TCU 33/24 Q1002 NOSIG
ZSSS 130630Z 24004MPS 190V280 9999 FEW030TCU SCT030 34/22 Q1002 NOSIG
ZSSS 130600Z 23005MPS 200V260 9999 SCT030 34/23 Q1002 NOSIG
ZSSS 130530Z 22003MPS 170V250 9999 SCT030 34/24 Q1002 NOSIG
ZSSS 130500Z 23003MPS 190V280 9999 BKN028 34/25 Q1003 NOSIG
ZSSS 130430Z 24002MPS 200V280 9999 BKN028 33/24 Q1003 NOSIG
ZSSS 130400Z 25003MPS 220V290 9999 BKN026 33/24 Q1003 NOSIG

Minutes, tons, whatever. It was five though.

I seriously hope that the discussion will not go along the line of whether or not Qatari crew should have declared a fuel emergency based on their perceived delay or endurance.

The main point here being, when you hear an emergency declared, relayed by tower/app controller to yield your slot, I think it's utterly disgraceful that this was not taken more seriously by the said Chinese aircraft driver (they don't even deserve to be addressed as crew, let alone pilots.)

There's only an exception in this case, that the Juneyao flight is in distress itself.

The ancouver Sun, accurate as ever, is running the story headed by a picture of an F18. Now that's an interesting airline to fly with.

I wonder how much of the account is straight from official sources and how much is just reporting unchecked reports. Bet the truth of this is way off what the interwebthing is saying.

When I read headline grabbing stories like this I tend to read into it alternate explanations that play the even way down.

It's only after I'm proved wrong that I get excited :)

Well, five tonnes is about 5 minutes (MAYBE 10) above Final Reserve in a Heavy 777-300, so that might be what was being alluded too.

Had a bit of trawl through the various articles posted in the innerweb about this alleged incident, trying to find the source. Didn't succeede in that, but did notice that all of the articles seem to be based on rumours spawned on enthusiasts internet forums.

As the story is picked up by other media, something very interesting happens that turns rumours into facts. One article quotes as follows: "A netizen going by the name "Boeing" who claimed to have heard the recording ...". In subsequent articles, who are clearly doing little more than a cut and paste job, the same information is presented as facts, and without naming the source. In essence it comes "recordings clearly shows".

So what we have here seems to be a story spawned on an internet forum for enthusiasts, picked up by another site that's monitored by "the media" and eventually published.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, only that the sources of information so far are of unknown, and questionable, quality. And that we're essentially sat on an internet forum, discussing rumours that seem to have its origins on another one.

Still, better than watching TV I suppose.

mad_jock,
If the Juneyao Airlines aircraft had less airborne time than the Qatar aircraft, wouldn't it have declared a fuel emergency too? There's no statement about the Juneyao aircraft being in any emergency whatsoever. :ugh:

Well if the fuel figures from myradios are true 2.9T in a 320 is significantly more than the Qatar final reserve +5mins.
1.2T ish = 30 min final reserve leaving 1.7T holding and alternate fuel.

I wonder if the Juneyao crew knew the Qatar had declared an emergency and that was why they had been asked to break off their approach? Its easy to judge without all the facts...
Sure if they were in the loop about that its unforgivable with that much left i the tanks.

Language barrier?
 

It's worth considering the possibility that a language barrier was part (if not most) of the problem. I regularly operate through PVG and SHA, and English is only used in comms with LESS THAN HALF of the aircraft on frequency.

The Qatari flight would have been using English and ATC would have been responding in English. The Juneyao crew would have been using Mandarin with ATC responding in Mandarin.

The loss of situational awareness that this causes is unnerving, even while ops are normal. We are forced to rely heavily on TCAS as primary means for situational awareness in terminal airspace. Awareness of comms from/to most other aircraft in the vicinity is lost.

In a fuel (or other) emergency, the possibility of a "lost in translation" causing at least confusion and at worst fatalities is a very real threat.

...but all Chinese pilots speak English to level 6, right ICAO? :yuk: Grrr...

According to the Chinese civil aviation regulator, the Chinese plane was found to have sufficient fuel to keep it in the air for another hour while the Qatari pilot had just five minutes' supply left.

Juneyao should have "turned right" and got out of the way!!! :p

If the Qatari really had 5 min of fuel remained, for some reasons the Qatari went around on the final approach, even the Juneyao gave way, the Qatari would be doomed.

I think it's more a question of "if" the Qatari had to go around they would have been into their 30mins final reserve and have some serious explaining to do rather than being doomed.

Hopefully someone from Qatar Airways can assist by providing us with the actual info, preferably from the 777 driver.

B777-300:

5 tons = 45 minutes.
5 minutes = 500 to 600 kilos

5 tons is not a lot of fuel in Chinese airspace.

It doesn't really matters if QR had or not 5' fuel!

The bible of radio communications at least in a JAR environment (CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual) state:

'As soon as there is any doubt as to the safe conduct of a flight, immediately request assistance from ATC. Flight crews should declare the emergency situation early; it can always be cancelled.'

... priority must be given to the distress call! I don't think there are any doubt about it!

Now, if one ATC controller has to control two or more distress aircraft ... in minimum fuel, emergency fuel scenario ... the rules is 'first come, first serve!' unless the crew clearly announce the flight time remaining.

The English Language requirement applies only to international flights. Most Chinese domestic pilots cannot speak Engrish.

I wasn't aware of that, Neptunus. Thank you.

Be that as it may, I stand behind my previous comments. The language barrier is ever present, and a constant threat.

Aviation Herald:

Interesting. I have heard this said before but I have never found it in the rules - can you point me at the reference?

777-300.

5 tonnes, assuming it is symetrical, is just 800kgs above the LOW FUEL EICAS would display.

Leading to a Flap 20 landing, limited pitch for any G/A, possibly flying one wing down to get fuel to feed.

So about 5 mins of titting about time with some flap out, not much on a "Dark and Stormy Night"

The story made the South China Morning Post today and is interesting in it's assetions. It says the China Aviation Administration reported that the 777 had considerably more fuel remaining than the pilots told the controllers - enough for about half an hour's flying. However a fuel state of 5 tonnes, there was not much room for error.

What worries me is that our Ops manual requires us to declare an emergency if the aircraft will land below final reserve fuel which in our case is thirty minutes. If we were put into the same position as the Qatari crew and knew that a go around was going to put us in the position of landing with less than fianl reserve - we would have no option but to do what they did.

I suspect that this is a communication problem. I fly into Shanghai a lot and although outwardly the controllers appear to have a grasp of English, they just appear know the standard phrases and responses. If there is any problem which involves something non-standard, they struggle to comprehend.

In my opinion the actions of the Juneyao crew were indefensible if their reported fule state was accurate. THE scmp reports they have been suspended pending further investigations.

here's today's SCMP article in full
 

Air incident based on lies, report says

Flight crews on both a Qatari and a domestic airliner lied about a fuel shortage during a scare this month, China's aviation watchdog claims
Will Clem in Shanghai

Aug 27, 2011

Flight crews on both aircraft involved in a controversial mid-air emergency over a Shanghai airport this month lied to air-traffic controllers, air-safety watchdogs said.

Pilots on flights operated by Qatar Airways and Juneyao Airlines both exaggerated fuel shortages in order to be given landing priority in the August 13 incident, China Central Television reported yesterday.

The Civil Aviation Administration has been investigating allegations that the pilot of Juneyao flight HO1112 refused to follow controllers' instructions to give way to a Qatar flight from Doha that had issued a Mayday call due to lack of fuel.

The pilots on Qatar flight QR888 reportedly requested an emergency landing as they had just five minutes' worth of fuel remaining, but the flight crew on the Juneyao aircraft - which was already on final approach to Hongqiao International Airport - ignored orders to give way, saying they were also running short of fuel.

The Qatar flight was forced to delay landing, but made it onto the runway without incident.

However, CCTV reported yesterday that the aviation administration found that both aircraft had considerably more fuel remaining than the pilots had told air-traffic controllers.

The Qatar aircraft, a Boeing 777-300ER, still had around five tonnes of aviation fuel after landing, sufficient for approximately half an hour's flying time, while the smaller Juneyao plane had between two and three tonnes, enough to keep it in the air for another hour, the report said.

The aviation administration's eastern branch could not be reached for comment yesterday, and no update had been posted on the administration's website since an initial statement released on Wednesday.

Juneyao said the flight crew involved had been suspended pending the outcome of the administration's investigation, but also stated that "parts of online discussions" of the incident had a "comparatively large discrepancy" from the facts.

Qatar, in a statement released late on Thursday night, said its aircraft had been diverted from Pudong International Airport, also in Shanghai, due to unforeseen thunderstorms.

"In the captain's judgment, in order not to compromise flight safety en route to Hongqiao airport, he declared an emergency."

The release made no mention of the amount of fuel the plane was carrying at the time, but said that media reports of the incident "contain information which is ambiguous and misleading".

A spokesman for the airline declined to elaborate.

"There are many reports and rumours on the internet, and much of the information is not accurate," he said. "The incident is currently under investigation and we are co-operating with the authorities."

Professor Sun Ruishan, director of the Research Institute of Civil Aviation Safety in Tianjin , said that although it was difficult to comment without knowing the full details of the case, it would be highly irregular for pilots to give inaccurate information to air-traffic controllers.

"In the interests of safety, it is absolutely necessary for air-traffic controllers to be able to trust what they are being told by pilots," Sun said. "There can be no room in the industry for pilots to be giving the wrong information so they can jump the queue. That would be a very immoral thing to do."

[email protected]

For what we know, did the Juneyao flight clearly declare MAYDAY?

Some serious butt-covering going on here.

The Qatari may have landed with 5 tonnes of fuel, but only AFTER declaring an emergency and being given a priority approach. Had they not done so, and had had to hold further, they would have DEFINATLEY gone into fixed reserve and had an Emergency.

If Qatari SOPs are the same as ours, this was DEFINATLEY an urgency situation, and REQUIRED at least a PAN call. Thing is PAN is not recognised in many places, and it is absolutley at the Commanders discretion to institute a distress phase if he deems it necessary for flight saftey- SAFTEY, not expedience, which was clearly the case with the A320.

To give some numbers, FRES on a 777-300 is typically 3200kg (30 mins, 1500 ft at landing weight) and holding rate is around 6T/hr, so landing with 5T meant he had about one 1.5 min holding pattern between him and Min fuel.

To call initiating a distress Phase in those circumstances "Lying" is just not reasonable, and neither in refusing a go-around to make way for a MAYDAY aircraft when you have 1.5hrs worth in the tanks.

Yes ... the bottom line ... on the ground we are all professors and usually we are all very good at teaching what we don't know!

ICAO English language
 

Spitoon re your question. I do not have the exact wording with me, regarding ICAO English requirements. However, if I may paraphrase, they state that level 4 English is required for any pilot or ATC operating or handling an international flight.

Wiz - well said:):D

... so "if further delayed" you might have an emergency situation? :confused: That could be said to be true of every flight!

That's probably a new translation problem with a lot more behind the words.