BA245 - Insufficient fuel to divert
 

News: Fog in Buenos Aires on Aug 31st 2012, British Airways B772 has insufficient fuel to divert and other fuel emergencies

Another two flights also had fuel issues and made it down safely.

This situation sounds significantly different. To be fair to Ryanair for a change, the Valencia emergencies were declared AFTER a significant amount of holding AND a diversion across half of Spain.
Perhaps the CAT 1 alternate was not CAT 1 as advertised and it wasn't worth diverting to.
Whatever the events leading up to this situation, you have to play the cards you have in your hand at the time. If getting on the ground means declaring a mayday and landing below minimums then so be it.
Job done. Everyone safe.

Air France and American Airlines too:eek:.

News: Fog in Buenos Aires on Aug 31st 2012, British Airways B772 has insufficient fuel to divert and other fuel emergencies

Presumably there's not a massive amount of scope for carrying extra fuel on LHR to EZE; it has to be fairly close to the maximum range of a B772, no...?

It's getting there but you've still usually got a little wriggle room, and there may be the option to trade payload for fuel if the bad weather is forecast and you know you may need the gas ( the only "close" in alternate for a 777 would be Montevideo - which shares EZE's weather. Failing that you're looking at alternates a significant distance away).

Whatever the alternate when making the fuel decision in London you're working on a forecast that will be well over 12 hours old by the time you get to EZE, and there's also the problem of the quality of the forecast.....and that's a problem not just confined to EZE.

Wiggy, are the BA triples satcom enabled? is there any provision to get the latest metars enroute? or how about the flightwatch function back at mission control? just wondering....having been in similar circumstances I wonder if the crew were backed into a corner of sorts?

Those are the reasons why flying from FCO to EZE with the MD11, many moons ago, when I saw that he burn off became more than expected (and we know that in certain seasons the headwind is very strong in those region) and/or the destination=alternate weather worsened next to the minima, I made more than once an intermediate stop at GIG to refuel.

Before this thread runs to 100's of pages of speculation, we need more FACTS. The crew may well have said "MAYDAY we do not have enough fuel to divert" but it is certainly not in the BA book of words and I cannot see why it would have been said and thus I believe the reporting is (as always?) inaccurate.

MAYDAY is only required (as with Ryanair) when you EXPECT TO LAND with less than reserves and has nothing to do with diversion fuel. In this situation I guess a PAN would have been an option, or some other form of 'advice' to ATC that they were now 'committed' to the field.

As to why they APPEAR to have 'committed' to an airfield that did not APPEAR to meet the EUOPS rules for such we will have to wait and see.

Yes, crews routinely use ACARS to update the weather picture. What is being allluded to here (and at GRU) is that the info obtained often bears no relation to the "ground truth" when you arrive.

FACTS
 

One FACT is that economical pressure increases, ammount of extra fuel carried decreases. Flight planning is more accurate the last decade.

FICTION is that environmental forcecasts are always predictable, they aren´t.

There are and will be day´s where my guts feeling tells me to take another zip out of the hose to have something at the other end. It paid off most of the time. In some cases to have the Supersavers going ahead as they where so short you can hear the tension in the voice on the radio, for what reason?

It takes balls and bones to sustain the Beancounters, we are sure not wasters in our profession. The guys who are next generation managers are not the same breed anymore. They jump ship tomorrow for a better candy..... Loyalty to themselves and nothing more.

A question.

If EZE was below minima for a BA 777 and they'd been going round the hold (presumably in the expectation of an improvement) for 25 minutes; what happened to allow them to land 12 minutes later ?

Was there an improvement ? what would have happened if the weather had got worse ?

Have you looked at the actuals on the link? - well, what would you have done?

Yes ... the METAR immediately before they landed was 175FG .... and it was 1100FG a half hour after they landed. it seemed that 200FG had been the thing driving it below minima which is what my tiny PPL brain is pondering over.

Nobody else landed for another 20 mins which tells me that the improvement was pretty sudden about 11.20 Z and the it was still below or close to minima when the BA landed.

This is more confused because an AF was happy to land CATIII at about 10.30 Z but told it was below minima.

Why AA came in as an emergency at 11.49Z after things were starting to get back to normal isn't explained.

What would I have done ? suffered the same dilema of an approach ban, holding time getting shorter but a forecast for rapid improvement.

I wouldn't bet the farm on anything other than "Mayday" working in that part of the world.

...And the sky opened all of a sudden for them.
 

Gentlemen,
Sorry to speak about the many unknowns, but let's admit the fact.

Emergency because low on fuel, so...."command A, B, C, D", and all you have to land, otherwise, say good bye. :=

Nothing else they could do, I guess. Once inside the trap, try the best you can.
What about the old re-dispatch practice? You guys think would work here in this scenario? Just asking. ;)

Thanks.

I can not believe the BA guy, did not divert straight away, going round in circles just hoping the weather improves and then declaring he did not have enough fuel to divert, he should be arrested for endangering peoples lives, he had how long from London to Buenos Aires to have come up with a plan just in case this happens.

probably more interested in Lobster or Beef for dinner!

How many airports did he pass which were OK weather wise before reaching Buenos Aires?

2 things going to kill you cumulus granitas and fuel, how many stories recently have we heard.

Dont blame Commercial pressures, you sign the bloody tech log and fuel receipts, you have a duty of care for every passenger on board, that takes precedence over every thing, commercial not happy, you go fly the plane

I agree with you Wellington. Why did they hang around for so long burning all
the fuel?

Looking at the TAFs/METARs for Montevideo in the same period, I see that it had very similar weather (as would be expected), but both airports had actuals that deteriorated to significantly worse than their quite acceptable forecasts (as far as I can see). I do not know if Montevideo was his alternate - I do not know all the details of the case, as I suspect you also do not - but I would not be so quick to judge without full knowledge of all the facts. - Maybe he did not divert because his (originally fully acceptable) alternate had also deteriorated below minimums........

I see the skygods have arrived to condemn the crew and tell us how they would never have allowed it to happen. Guess it's easy to do that when you're retired - or fly a computer.

I did not mean to condemn the crew and don't have the facts either. Would be
interesting to see what the wx was at the alternate.

What was the weather forecast in the hours beforehand? Maybe the weather was not accuratly forecast, hence the situation that occured.

Look at the link in the first post of this thread. The worst in the forecast was Prob 40 Tempo 600 metres in shallow fog, the actual was as bad as 100 metres met vis, 200 metres RVR. Montevideo had a similar discrepancy between TAF and Actual.

No one knows the variables besides the two up front, their fleet manager and a few other 'need to know' bods in BA. The same can be said about the Ryanair incident in MAD last month. People should learn not to judge on things that aren't as clear cut as they may initially think. I doubt this is a clear cut incident, much like the FR guys who diverted to VLC.

Think before you judge, for the sake of the crew. Put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if an incident like this involved you and shortly afterwards you had to listen to others being so high and mighty over your actions. It would be bloody annoying wouldn't it?

I wouldn't say this was "normal" but it is not an unheard of scenario:

You set off with a destination and alternate, both forecasting weather well above minima. When you get close, i.e. commit yourself to landing at one or the other, the weather at *both* goes out of limits.

What to do? Well, you could go off to your alternate, if it looked like it might clear or stay with the destination. If you're at the destination anyway, you get to use your diversion fuel for extra holding, so a better chance of getting in than *having* to make an approach shortly after you reach the alternate.

In the end, if it's low vis., you declare an emergency and land anyway. If there's an ILS, chances are it will work fine, especially if it's CATII or better. The aeroplane doesn't know what the RVR is, so will behave as normal. File the paperwork and carry on.

You don't plan to do this but circumstances sometimes conspire and it's better than flying around in circles and running out of fuel...

If your alternate is at max range for a divert and the forecast indicates a chance both might be below limits, is that a reason to load more fuel and offload cargo or pax to compensate?

Could island reserves be one way of helping to ensure adequate room for manoeuvre?

Anyone who has flown professionally for any number of years knows that circumstances sometimes will lead you to a very uncomfortable position.. the smallest, seemingly insignificant decisions made many hours before are back to haunt you...
How about recognizing the courage of the crew in not hesitating to declare an emergency, to get their plane and passengers safely out of harms way. When they made that decision they fully understood the ramifications.. how many might have tried to avoid doing that and held on just a bit too long.. I suspect not a few. Well done guys.. I hope that it all comes out in your favour.

I had min fuel to go to destination and a close in alternate at Barranquilla, colombia. Both were closed because of weather so diverted to Panama City with no com with company because HF didn't work. We landed fine with plenty of fuel but company was concerned. We didn't descend so still had 45 minutes at destination. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do. Screw SOP's.

For the benefit of the masses of armchair pilots who have never been to EZE, the airfield lies on very flat ground to the south of the airfield on the rivers, rather massive, flood plain.

The biggest problem with EZE is that the wetlands surrounding the airfield in winter cough up very patchy but very dense fog patches. Many times these won't appear in the TAF/METAR/ATIS but, especially with a southerly wind, they will drift over the airfield with alarming regularity! Given the same southerly wind Montevideo is also suffers from the same problem off the river. Honestly, you are just plain unlucky if you get one sometimes. It seems that has been the problem here.

The fuel decisions would have been made 14-15 hours previously based on TAF's that we all know have to be interpreted. CAT IIIa with 200 meters is promulgated and the weather is acceptable, CAT II is available and adequate at 600m in BCFG. The crew (4 of them) would have made a decision to commit and then declared a mayday due to potentially landing below reserve fuel after an adequate expected 25 minute holding pattern on a long range flight. Thus allowing them to perhaps leap frog aircraft that have a greater holding capacity due to shorter routings.

Perfectly acceptable to me.

Because it's Longhaul, and as a result perhaps no-one in the crew had been to EZE before, perhaps did not share Wirbelsturm's local knowledge, and therefore were relying on the TAF.

Perhaps the more important question is why didn't the MET forecast reflect this local "quirk".

Well done B & B
 

I thought that you were sleeping. Your normal BA bashing took a little longer to surface than usual. Don't let good argument from W get in the way.

It would be interesting to know if you've ever flown anywhere that the simple expedient of picking up the phone to enquire about the weather wasn't the norm.

There there, time to go back under your rock.

This would have been the TAF at take off (not briefing) Landing time is about 11:00 UTC (13 hour flight)

Remember that LHR CAT I required vis is 550m and the TAF is giving patches of fog (as explained previously) in a slowly strengthening northerly wind of 900m I can't remember off the top of my head what the CAT I rvr is but 900m ain't too bad. Prob 30 does NOT have to be taken into account for the purposes of fuel planning but judging from the fact they could hold for 25 minutes they certainly did take it into account. LH, long range often does not have the luxury of hours of holding fuel purely due to max take off weight limitations.

This would have been the TAF used for briefing. Again, Prob 30 900m in fog patches, improving. Not a problem. The aircraft would have been loaded to max t/o weight I'm assuming and the max available fuel loaded as well. I've flown this route several times and there is often no/little available weight for fuel (1 or 2 tonnes=20 minutes less the burn needed to cart it to Argentina = 10 minutes extra!)

Both of these TAF's show that the forecast was inaccurate/inadequate and the crew based their fuel decision on a forecast that showed and acceptable weather pattern at arrival.

25 minutes holding after a max range flight was pretty good and definately showed that they had loaded contingency to the max, all IMHO of course.

These guys were just plain unlucky that the fog stirred up unexpectedly (see the forecasts) to 100m or so at the time they were there!

Summary:

BA does this - GOOOD
Ryanair does this - BAAAD

I'd have thought the crew were well aware of the possibility of fog but their destination had CAT III runways with an RVR limit of 200m, with a probability of 600m at the worst on the forecast. The RVR appears to have dipped to 175m for a short period around their arrival time, coincident with Montevideo going below limits as a CAT I alternate (with a similarly benign forecast).

The BA245 has a block time of 13h40m, according to the timetable, so would have been pretty heavy for a full load down to EZE. Due to the sector length, to get a certain amount of extra fuel at destination would require loading considerably more out of London, possibly compromising the commercial payload.

Occasionally, despite the best planning, things don't quite go the way you'd like them to. All aviation proceeds on a balance of probabilities, so every-now-and-then, you get a five-sigma event or something like that. If 10% of flights were declaring emergencies and landing out of limits, then it would be raising eyebrows, certainly at the regulatory level. Once in several decades of daily operation is interesting but not really significant.

175m RVR on a CAT IIIa would be virtually indistinguishable from 200m, just that the limit is set at 200m. It's not like descending to 4,000' when the terrain is at 4,100' ahead of you. I'd hazard a guess that they probably had the required visual reference (which isn't much) at 50R, anyway. If the RVR had been 200m during the approach, then had deteriorated to 175m below 1,000', they would legally have been able to land, given they got the above reference and there would have been no sensationalist discussion. The difference was that due to legacy rules there was an approach ban in force...

5 flights, all with up to date forecasts and the ability to gain an actual throughout the flight, Short Haul, all with the ability to carry adequate diversion fuel to just about anywhere in Europe but not being given the 'authority' based upon fears of management pressure due to fuel league tables = BAD decision (from the company).

1 LH flight, no company restrictions on loaded fuel, just a minor niggle of max operating aircraft limits, 13+ hours at max endurance to an airfield the other side of the world with an acceptable TAF both for the destination and the diversion resulting in a declared fuel Mayday due to the weather forecast being inadequate/inaccurate? = GOOD decision (by the crew).

IMHO of course!

When we all became part of JAA (soon to become EASA) I became aware at the usual time of "God the sun is just coming up" of BA aircraft coming off the Pond stating to London ATC that "they were committing to LHR".

It took me a while to figure this out.

As a dinosaur, I had enough fuel to get me to my destination, miss the approach and then divert to my alternate where I would still have 30 minutes of emergency fuel in my tanks.

So, under JARs, BA discovered that they could "commit" to LHR on the basis that two runways were available and continue without having enough fuel to divert to even Birmingham.

I would NEVER EVER have gone down that road. Nor did I when the rules changed.

So now it has come to bite them in the arse.

For British Airways to arrive at destination and announce that they do not have enough fuel to divert is, quite frankly, horrific.

At least the FR aircraft that (quite rightly) declared a Mayday to land at their diversion airfield had already been to their destination (Madrid) and had diverted.

This bunch of comedians would appear to have declared a Mayday before they even tried to divert because they couldn't?

JW411

What complete and utter nonsense!!

You seem to have picked up 'fag ends' of a conversation, made huge assumptions and come up with a complete pile of drivel. :=

I think we can all see where the comedian is. :ugh:

Oh please tell me that BA can never do anything wrong.

I would be so grateful.

Sure they can JW411. Unfortunately you are just talking :mad: wrt our flight planning rules.

TDK m2

I hope you dont mean me, in the retired or computer nerd category, current airline captain if you must know, so pipe down.

Nobody has answered the question, in 13 hours they did not get a suitable alternate, they just ploughed on with what they planned 13 hours ago and probably planned the alternate with a prob40 tempo. Big mistake 99 times out of 100 they get lucky and it never appears. As somebody said they may disregard prob tempos, to me if it appears on paper whatever the chances, somebody far brighter than me who studied meteorology thinks it may happen, good enough for me, find somewhere else.

JW, completely agree with you

Somebody told me it is better to make a mistake, and then change than make no decision at all, which is what happened here

I'll dignify it with a response.

No surprises there, you've never read the BA Ops manual.

As is standard BA policy.

As can other JAR airlines, but only on the basis of 'landing assured', a known delay and landing with reserves. There's bugger all difference between diverting from LHR and arriving at BHX with reserves and leaving the BNN hold and landing at one of LHRs two runways with reserves bar you've got more options at one of those airfields if a runway closes.

Your choice. Nobodys forced to do it in BA either but statistically it works.

Errm no it hasn't. This took place at EZE, not LHR.

Hyperbole alert. No it's not horrific at all, not even close. You find me an aviator who hasn't, with the best will in the world, found themselves facing unforecast bad weather and a reducing number of options and I'll show you someone who hasn't flown much. None of the aircraft at EZE that day were going to run out of fuel. They may have had to autoland below limits. Being a drama queen about it adds nothing to the debate.

But they still had to declare a Mayday and so were in no better position than the BA aircraft.

I agree with Super Stall.

Wellington - have you ever flown in South America? Between GIG and GRU is about three and a half hours flight time with perhaps two or three suitable airfields for a 777. Are you seriously suggesting the crew drop into one of those airfields to uplift extra fuel on the basis that there might be FG at EZE thats much worse than the forecast?