Vistara UK944 lands with 200kg fuel
 

START APU:O

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4f1874ba08.jpg


There are rumours TOF was 8.500 kg.
Two G/A and diversion, total flight time 3h29min.
What do the 320 jocks say about possible fuel remaining?

Insufficient fuel as a result of insufficient use of the word "Unable" to ATC.

While we can confirm the diversions and 3:29 hours total flight time, we have no evidence of a landing with less than minimum fuel. The claim by Indian media might also be read (as this fine difference likely isn't known to them) as minimum fuel + 200kg.

At this time we know this:

The crew diverted to Lucknow and performed an approach without requesting priority or declaring emergency. The crew went around, still no Mayday. The crew diverted again, and now the Mayday call comes - hence it is obvious landing at Allahabad was no longer ensured with the minimum fuel still onboard. The aircraft turned back to Lucknow and landed, probably with more fuel on board than would have remained after landing at Allahabad.

At this time it is unclear what amount of fuel really was on board after landing. We are waiting for official comment by the DGCA (if they report a serious incident indeed, then this was a landing with less than the minimum fuel and we are going to report. If it wasn't a serious incident, then they landed with minimum fuel still on board and we are not going to report this at all).

Servus, Simon

Simon - post #2 by pineteam has a link to a photo of 200 kgs of fuel remaining. What's unknown is if that's actually from the incident aircraft.

...this is pprune...Simon deals in factual...:E

Pilot grounded by the DGCA:

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/stor...163-2019-07-16

200 kg is lower end taxi burn. The tanks would need to be dipped to get an accurate figure for this quantity.

Oh thank heavens
 

They are no more grounded..... They just had a bad day.. We all do

Here is the oder from dgca

"The pilots are cleared to resume their normal flying duties". Wtf ?

Not a pilot, what should they have done differently?

During monsoon in India I would opt for some extra fuel.

The report implies at fuel of 1260kg they accepted an instruction to climb to FL100 for another diversion. That scares me.

As good as forecasts can be, weather is unpredictable and can catch the best people out with little notice. They obviously started with a fair chunk of extra fuel.

There comes a point when you have to land and to me the safest action at the 1260kg fuel point would be to fly another approach immediately, declare a mayday as you know you'll be below final reserve, and quickly brief how you plan to fly an approach and it's doubtful you'll be visual at CAT1 minima (not sure of approaches available) but you will continue to land.

That said I'm using hindsight, and unfamiliar with the airfields.

If they went around from Delhi because of the tailwind on 29 why not land on 11? its also CAT3b. They had 90 mins of fuel at that point to wait out ATC changing runway. I have been to DEL so I know its easier said than done, but if its out of limits for 1 A320 then it is for at least some of the others too.

Lucknow 27 is also CAT3B so why would an RVR of 275m be an issue there? As Total Pressure says, even if the crew aren't CAT 3 trained or the aircraft isn't fully capable, surely, at some point the greatest threat to the aircraft is running out of fuel?

Is there something we don't know about the aircraft technical state either at dispatch or on approach?

Did they do a go around with less than 1.500 kgs in the tanks?

They beat the Virgin Australia record at Mildura.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...be75067d4f11aa

looks like 1260kg when they discontinued and started a 90 odd mile divert. Then when 37 miles into the divert the weather improves and they went back, fuel 500kg as they turned around with 37 miles to run.

There has to be more to the story.

3400Kg overhead a 3 runway airport with CAT3B would seem to me to be the point to go back to.

If it was tailwind and not RVR, did they ask for the reciprocal? If they did, why was it refused?

Did others divert?

Now on avherald.

Incident: Vistara A20N at Lucknow on Jul 15th 2019, landed with just 260kg of fuel remaining

Assuming the runways had ILS, it seems like the PIC should have exercised emergency authority a lot earlier. I hope this isn't one of those cases where the reasoning was that "the book says we can't..."

I think the photo was blurred because the pilot's hand was still trembling after they landed.

Lucky they had Lucknow on their side. A few minutes later, they would have ran out of Luck.

Thx God they didn't try to reach Allahabad...(about 100 NM from Lucknow).

An oldie but a goodie

Was there an ILS in Lucknow? Seems like it given the RVRs listed on AVherald. They were overhead with minimum fuel (1100kg), that was the point they should have done an autoland regardless, and if they get visual, take the autopilot out for a manual landing. If the RVR is 1m, the autoland system doesn't care. I appreciate that terrain (rather than ILS quality/lighting) might prohibit the autolanding on a technical basis, but a dodgy autoland is probably a lot more comfortable than actually running out of fuel whilst still in the air.

Also, someone correct me, but is a modern A320 with FLS capable of landing automatically from an NPA with a MAP over the threshold? This aircraft was an A320 neo so quite possibly technically equipped for that as an even laster last resort?

Scary stuff all the same, those lucky people!!

Don't konow the neo, but autoland on A320 ILS only.

NEO is the same. Autoland is possible only with ILS.