Well just my twopence worth but in my decades off coming off the pond I have never ever heard any calls from a BA aircraft saying any such thing - and given all the options between the eastern edge of "the pond" and LHR there would be no reason "to commit", as you put it.

I'm with Wiggy,

Never 'committed' to anything until the donks have been switched off on stand. The options are always open until they're not. Obviously everyone else has a far better knowledge of the SOP's, fuel planning and diversion criteria than I do. :ugh:

At no point on the forecasts did the met ever go below that required to conduct a successful approach. The met bone chuckers screwed it up. Local effects added to the woes and other airlines got bitten as well. Welcome to EZE. Without Montevideo it is effectively an 'island' destination without the ability to carry 'Island' fuel.

Wellington, you say But what seems to have happened is that while the Prob40 tempo was quite acceptable, the actual conditions deteriorated to worse than the worst part of the forecast. Are we supposed to second guess the forecasters, who are forecasting an area that they (supposedly) know much better than us???

JW 411

Age 71. So 33 years ago (1979) you were 38. Was it in 1979 that you left the Military and applied to and were turned down by BA?

I agree with Wiggy, in 34 years of Atlantic crossings I NEVER heard a BA aircraft "committing" to LHR as they exited NAT airspace.

Did they never get an updated forecast while en route?

The sequence of forecasts that would have been available while en-route as posted in the link in the first post of this thread ALL indicated a forecast of acceptable weather. The deterioration in the destination actuals may have occurred while the alternate actuals were still good - maybe it was a case of once in a very long while all the cards falling against them despite following all the rules and normal "best practice"

Wellington Bomber

Have you considered the possibility that they were continually getting updated weathers and that at top of descent the alternate weather deteriorated to well below what was forecast followed shortly after by a deterioration of destination weather?

Sometimes committing to destination is better than using up fuel diverting to a less suitable alternate. It sounds like in the situation under discussion both alternate and destination went out in quick succession contrary to worst forecast and after prolonged holding some priority was needed.

Beerdrinker, my goodness. 34 years of crossings. You must be an interesting person.

What? No Mil? Were you turned down by the Mil? No flying fighters and dropping deadly weapons serving your Queen? No comraderie, only bid-line and seniority list.

Did you apply for Service and were turned down or, did you just not apply?

Answers on a postcard.

Read all opinions.
Now solutions - why don't EZE upgrade to CAT IIIb and stop this PPRUNE nonsense?

Geez, seems like 3 experienced crews came to the similar decision. BA, AF, and AA. So do all the pilots from the U.K., France, and the U.S. stink or did it just happen that this day 3 lousy Captains with 6 wimpy FO's all happened to arrive at the same place at the same time? Or did circumstances have three different crews, from three different airlines, cultures, and countries, all came to a conclusion that the situation required? I don't know and neither do any of the posters.

Years ago landing in C. Amercia with two alternates(near and distant) due to bad weather. Fair amount of deviatating towards end of cruise and during descent due to weather(more than forecast/expected). On final to destination and it's being hit by a thunderstorm. Nearby alternate also has thunderstorm. Figured out gas to distant alternate, anticipated overburn for deviating, and diverting to the distant alternate, which has no nearby backup field, would be close to an emergency right now. It would be a committment with little room for error. It's decision time. Ask FE then FO what they think? They come up with what I thought was best - take all the gas for the distant alternate and hold between the destination and primary alternate. Probably have 2 hrs worth of holding gas now. Hold about 20 minutes, storm blows out, and we land with lots of gas.

If you only have to make tough decisions every 20 yrs you're lucky.

CargoOne
 

No money!!

It's threads like this that make me pleased I retired in 2001.

I'm surprised with some of the replies from people who have actually flown large airplanes and who criticise from their retired armchairs with 20/20 hindsight.

I always made decisions, and yes I have declared a fuel mayday in the past (at my alternate which was cavok - how many countries don't use Pan?), on the basis they were mine and not subject to scrutiny on public fora.

Perhaps I was too busy doing the job to read Pprune - oh hang on a minute the internet was still in the dial up era then and you had to think about the cost before you replied!!!

I would much rather stop en-route for a splash and dash than have my sphincter twitching overhead a beacon, put it that way

And very nicely put too, if I may say so Mr Wimpey!

As usual the news don't know what they're talking about... That's a given.

Anyway, having been to EZE quite frequently these last summers, with a 777, I can confirm that you never get the weather that's forecast. And I mean never.
It's always either fog that was never forecast or tailwinds on the approach (like 20 knots at 200 feet).
Plus Montevideo is always worse (last time the metar said 50 FG) and often doesn't have a valid TAF.

I always insist, but being only a simple FO, I end up with someone else's fuel figures (which are thankfully mostly reasonable).

These transcontinental flights usually arrive at dawn ( the best time for fog...) with long stretches of flight where the wind data is often unprecise. I've already had a 1.5 ton difference on arrival due to winds aloft not being accurate.

Oh and a last detail. In EZE they don't think it a problem to be CAT 2 capable without saying it on NOTAMS or the ATIS (which is broken anyway).

But the wine and the beef are great and it beats flying to ITCZ africa.

23,000 hrs, 18,000 with airlines have never landed without required 45 minutes minimum fuel. Dispatch has asked me to hold longer because SEA is improving so I call SEA and they are still below minimums so tell dispatch we are going to Portland. They said we will have to use buses. I said call them and went to Portland.

I was a junior captain then so guess they thought they could save the company some money. Guess what, I am the first airliner into Portland and soon the whole airport is full of them but we have a gate. Don't ever let dispatch let you not use good judgement. You are the captain.

I was planning fuel on a SEA approach, missed approach, and landing at Portland with 45 minutes fuel and we had only 5 minutes to start that. Don't let them suck you in as they tried to do me, just say no.

OK can I ask given the route where do you suggest this splash and go is performed? GIG/GRU are the obvious candidates but given the limiting weights on the 777-200 it's not impossible you'd be abeam or even south of GIG before you're down to Max landing weight (unless you're going to dump fuel :mad:....)

beerdrinker:

I don't really know why I am dignifying you with a reply but, just to put the record straight, the only time I applied to join BA it was actually BOAC. The year was 1959 and Hamble was on the horizon. We were told that we would probably have to wait a year which is a lifetime when you are 18.

I joined the RAF instead and had a wonderful 18 years. I never did a ground tour and I reckon I had a lot more fun.

Joining BA at the age of 38 was a daft idea (at least for me).

Nevertheless, thank you for your kind thoughts.

I agree that sounds a great idea if weather is bad at destination. However if weather at destination and alternate is good and forecast to remain that way anybody who decides to land en route for a splash and dash probably would not remain employed for very long.

I'm off to the Far East later this month. You can sometimes get unforecast bad weather out there. If the weather is looking pretty good shall I land en route and get some more fuel just in case?

You have to do what you have to do. Just never let your flight run out of fuel. It isn't that hard to do, just land with at least minimum fuel at your alternate.