User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:09 pm

I am intrigued by the mention of TWO runways at BOM.

Those who previously questioned the crew's choice to hold for an hour..... BOM has 2 runways. Once fire rescue assessed the status of the spice jet landings could take place on the secondary runway. The crew was hoping to get into the airport

Both runways have been upgraded to Code F, which means they can accommodate larger aircraft like the Airbus A380.
I also understand that there are some problems with using the secondary runway 14/32, for instance Trombay Hill and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) nuclear complex lying under the flight path.

So, here are two questions.
Firstly; how confident is everybody here that the stack of aircraft desperate to land, were given total priority over those aircraft still on the ground waiting to take-off? I would like to think it is a no-brainer, standard ICAO procedure. Or as somebody else said, in these circumstances getting the aircraft down is the primary objective. Any piece of tarmac will do, and gaining access to the crowded terminal buildings, coffee shops, and immigration, can all be sorted out later.

Secondly; due to the Spicejet blocking the main landing runway at BOM (09/27), there were fewer inbound landings than usual, and presumably there were spaces at terminals & other infrastructure with spare capacity (at BOM). Were any aircraft, and in particular AC46, offered 14/32 as an option?
I was going to add a witty sign-off, but all the best ones have already been taken.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:00 am

SXI899 wrote:
Why would they close the main runway and open the backup runway for an emergency? It's that just making things more complicated?
The backup runway in HYD is just the parallel taxiway anyway, so there was no benefit (and only unneeded complications) to closing the main runway and using the backup.
Strange thing to do in my opinion.

Good point. Planes were barreling down on 27L before and after AC46 landed on 9L. There was only 3 min gap before and after. My take, when HYD asked if 27L(the so-called "hold") is acceptable, AC46 started screaming MAYDAY, so HYD switched ops to 9L for few minutes.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
... Were any aircraft, and in particular AC46, offered 14/32 as an option?

Thai 351 landed on Mumbai 14/32 at 19:43 UTC after declaring MAYDAY.
AC46 never declared MAYDAY at Mumbai. It left Mumbai hold at 17:38UTC and reached HYD at 18:40UTC. All this happened en route HYD.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5861
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:24 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
SXI899 wrote:
Why would they close the main runway and open the backup runway for an emergency? It's that just making things more complicated?
The backup runway in HYD is just the parallel taxiway anyway, so there was no benefit (and only unneeded complications) to closing the main runway and using the backup.
Strange thing to do in my opinion.

Good point. Planes were barreling down on 27L before and after AC46 landed on 9L. There was only 3 min gap before and after. My take, when HYD asked if 27L(the so-called "hold") is acceptable, AC46 started screaming MAYDAY, so HYD switched ops to 9L for few minutes.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
... Were any aircraft, and in particular AC46, offered 14/32 as an option?

Thai 351 landed on Mumbai 14/32 at 19:43 UTC after declaring MAYDAY.
AC46 never declared MAYDAY at Mumbai. It left Mumbai hold at 17:38UTC and reached HYD at 18:40UTC. All this happened en route HYD.


So at least one other frame declared fuel MAYDAY.

Why should AC46 have declared fuel MAYDAY at BOM? It diverted to HYD, that is one hour flight. It called MAYDAY when HYD wanted to delay their landing.
It is only your take that HYD wanted simply that AC46 would land from a different direction, you should substantiate your claim. Up to than it stands that HYD wanted to put them on hold even after AC declared MAYDAY three times.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:49 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
...
...It is only your take that HYD wanted simply that AC46 would land from a different direction, you should substantiate your claim. Up to than it stands that HYD wanted to put them on hold even after AC declared MAYDAY three times.


Do yourself a favor.

Go to planefinder.
Filter Airports BOM/Inbound and HYD/Inbound
Playback from September 19, 2017, 16:00 UTC(watch the clock at the bottom middle). Based on your time zone, you have to select time under Map->Playback from the top left menu.
Set it to 50x fast forward speed.

It takes 3 minutes to watch. Come back and comment.

BTW, TSB Report A17F0230 is no longer available, Am I searching it wrong, or ????
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:52 pm

Apparently the situation at Mumbai ATC was worse, than what they had ever expected in their lifetime of controlling.
(Yes I talked to the ATC later on)

Some points to be noted before we blame either the ACA Crew or the ATC Crew

1) Everything was in chaos, this is what happens when you close the worlds busiest single runway airport in its peak time.
2) Other aircrafts too had fuel emergency.
3) In order to maintain peace, the main goal of ATC was to help all aircraft. Not to forget each controller was handling more than their required safe number of aircraft.
4) ACA Crew was surely tired (dont give me any 787 facts).
5) All aircraft have 3 alternates, for ACA it was AMD, HYD and my guess DEL (because ACA Staff avail)

ACA sacrificed its fuel for DEL while holding because the captain thought it was a better idea to land in BOM, because there was ACA Staff at BOM and they expected the secondary runway to be active till then. Makes sense.
When they realised that its gonna take more time, they decided to divert to AMD. When the ATC told them it would be impossible as AMD was full by the time ACA decided to go there. No ones fault, they can divert to HYD. Which they did.
When they started to head for HYD, ATC told them it was also full, both at HYD and AMD aircraft were parked on taxiways.
Note ACA had already declared mayday after they were denied at AMD and before they started heading to HYD (told to me by a live frequency listener).
Other AIC and IGO pilots I talked to, also said it was a complete chaos, one of the worst in Mumbai's history (or which they had ever seen)
Therefore if theres tons of aircraft requesting various things it makes sense that there was immense pressure on both ACA and ATC.

Other things to note is that DLH Handled the problem very well, it sent the A359 direct to DEL before any problems occured.
Maybe we can say ACA Dispatch didnt know how deep the problem was. Happens.
Therefore we cannot blame anyone in this case I feel, unless CTSB or DGCA declares a fault.

oh yea I forgot, the secondary runway was open for departures only, not landing, I live next to the runway I know how worse the weather was that day, METAR crossed 34kts as gusts and it was a complete crosswind for runway 14 which was at that time the only runway in BOM to have an ILS (CATI). Therefore BOM was completely closed until around midnight when the winds went down and departure from runway 32 could take place.
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5861
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:21 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
...
...It is only your take that HYD wanted simply that AC46 would land from a different direction, you should substantiate your claim. Up to than it stands that HYD wanted to put them on hold even after AC declared MAYDAY three times.


Do yourself a favor.

Go to planefinder.
Filter Airports BOM/Inbound and HYD/Inbound
Playback from September 19, 2017, 16:00 UTC(watch the clock at the bottom middle). Based on your time zone, you have to select time under Map->Playback from the top left menu.
Set it to 50x fast forward speed.

It takes 3 minutes to watch. Come back and comment.

BTW, TSB Report A17F0230 is no longer available, Am I searching it wrong, or ????


Do yourself a favor and stop. Once again, watching the flight path does give no information about the communication between the air traffic control and crew.
 
MYT332
Posts: 7288
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:31 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:40 am

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:
You only hold for an hour if you think there is a good chance to get into your destination or have a solid alternate that will definitely be open.


I've always wondered why Northeast Airlines 140 or Windsor 114 didn't divert after holding for so long at IAD that time. Surely there must have been an alternate open somewhere?
One Life, Live it.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11322
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:52 am

Finn350 wrote:
I guess we have to wait for a more complete description of the events.

Regarding Zeke's "You also have to commit to an airport to declare MAYDAY FUEL", I don't know what he means by commitment as emergency should be declared when "the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel".

Regarding dtw2hyd's "low fuel is not an emergency" is an inaccurate statement, as it is not clear if he is referring to "MINIMUM FUEL" or "MAYDAY FUEL" situation.


Sorry I didn’t see your post before.

Minimum fuel is declared when no other options are available and any further delay will result in landing below final reserve fuel. I.e. AC could not declare minimum fuel at BOM until they had burnt the fuel that ruled out a landing at any other airport. Once committed to an airport, if fuel drops below the final reserve level, mayday fuel is declared.

I saw the conversion dtw2hyd was having as the difference between minimum fuel and mayday fuel. I agree with what their comments, minimum fuel is not an emergency, nor does it require ATC priority. The minimum that one can land with is 30 minutes, and landing with that much it is perfectly legal. ATC has no requirement to give priority handling to land with more than 30 minutes once minimum fuel is declared.

Those of us that are older would have been around when long haul flights didn’t have the luxury of having 2 hrs of fuel available in the tanks on arrival, 30 minutes of fuel is not a comfortable place to be in at all. That is why I would not have done as AC did and held for 1:40 before diverting after already flown for 15 hours. Without having all the facts available it looks on face value they brought the situation upon themselves by holding for too long, I am very eager to see the decision making process and other facts involved in waiting so long before diverting. BTW my understanding is their planned alternate was AMD which has had a notam since August regarding the lack of parking stands for non schedule flights.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Both runways have been upgraded to Code F, which means they can accommodate larger aircraft like the Airbus A380.
I also understand that there are some problems with using the secondary runway 14/32, for instance Trombay Hill and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) nuclear complex lying under the flight path.


I am not sure about that, our 747-8s are not permitted on 14/32. With the conditions on the day I am not sure of the VOR on 32 would have enabled a landing on 32. 14 normally has a tailwind limit I think of 8 kts.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
1) Everything was in chaos, this is what happens when you close the worlds busiest single runway airport in its peak time.


I think that crown for the worlds busiest single runway airport belongs to LGW. Who told you their planned ALTN was DEL ? I was told it was AMD, I will love to see the facts once they become available.

If it happened as you stated and they declared an emergency before leaving BOM, why didn’t they go to PNQ (Pune), just 67 nm east of BOM, or AMD (Ahmedabad) 238 nm north from BOM, or GOI (Goa) that is 229 nm south of BOM. They elected instead to HYD which is 336 nm east of BOM ? The decision making process is even harder to understand in that set of circumstances.

I can understand waiting for 10-15 minutes to get more information regarding the disabled aircraft, get the DATIS for options, and to build the option in the FMC. But to ditch DEL if that was their planned ALTN and burn the transit fuel to DEL holding at BOM during monsoon season with TS , low cloud, rain, and strong winds with a disabled aircraft is a strange situation. Even stranger not telling ATC they are landing at BOM if they had in fact declared mayday fuel at BOM (in an emergency I don’t request anything, I tell ATC what I require. I do what I need to do to get a safe outcome).
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
theaviator380
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:44 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:59 am

[quote="zeke"][quote="Finn350"]

If it happened as you stated and they declared an emergency before leaving BOM, why didn’t they go to PNQ (Pune), just 67 nm east of BOM, or AMD (Ahmedabad) 238 nm north from BOM, or GOI (Goa) that is 229 nm south of BOM. They elected instead to HYD which is 336 nm east of BOM ? The decision making process is even harder to understand in that set of circumstances.

I can understand waiting for 10-15 minutes to get more information regarding the disabled aircraft, get the DATIS for options, and to build the option in the FMC. But to ditch DEL if that was their planned ALTN and burn the transit fuel to DEL holding at BOM during monsoon season with TS , low cloud, rain, and strong winds with a disabled aircraft is a strange situation. Even stranger not telling ATC they are landing at BOM if they had in fact declared mayday fuel at BOM (in an emergency I don’t request anything, I tell ATC what I require. I do what I need to do to get a safe outcome).
___________

PNQ is active Indian Air force base and never heard of any diversions into this airport. Ofcourse if it was that essential they would have thought about it however I doubt that PNQ can accommodate B789 having runway length only approx. 8300 feet. Biggest aircraft this airport can handle is A321, correct me if I am wrong.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11322
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:32 am

theaviator380 wrote:
PNQ is active Indian Air force base and never heard of any diversions into this airport. Ofcourse if it was that essential they would have thought about it however I doubt that PNQ can accommodate B789 having runway length only approx. 8300 feet. Biggest aircraft this airport can handle is A321, correct me if I am wrong.


PNQ is an international airport as well, 10th busiest airport in India, handles flights from FRA with the LH subsidiary Privateair. You are correct that the largest aircraft they normally receive at PNQ are 737/A320 size. The runway 10/28 is actually longer than NRT 16L/34R which sees 787/747/A330s all the time. If I had a genuine emergency it would be an option I would consider due to its close proximity to BOM.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:12 am

If HYD had an issue with both runways, what were the available options? Would pilots have charts for Begumpet(VOHB) 10,600 ft (or) Hakimpet(VOHK) 7,500ft

Still unclear when they declared the first MAYDAY how much fuel they had.

Both TSB and avherald are very quiet now.
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:45 am

zeke wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
I guess we have to wait for a more complete description of the events.

Regarding Zeke's "You also have to commit to an airport to declare MAYDAY FUEL", I don't know what he means by commitment as emergency should be declared when "the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel".

Regarding dtw2hyd's "low fuel is not an emergency" is an inaccurate statement, as it is not clear if he is referring to "MINIMUM FUEL" or "MAYDAY FUEL" situation.


Sorry I didn’t see your post before.

Minimum fuel is declared when no other options are available and any further delay will result in landing below final reserve fuel. I.e. AC could not declare minimum fuel at BOM until they had burnt the fuel that ruled out a landing at any other airport. Once committed to an airport, if fuel drops below the final reserve level, mayday fuel is declared.

I saw the conversion dtw2hyd was having as the difference between minimum fuel and mayday fuel. I agree with what their comments, minimum fuel is not an emergency, nor does it require ATC priority. The minimum that one can land with is 30 minutes, and landing with that much it is perfectly legal. ATC has no requirement to give priority handling to land with more than 30 minutes once minimum fuel is declared.

Those of us that are older would have been around when long haul flights didn’t have the luxury of having 2 hrs of fuel available in the tanks on arrival, 30 minutes of fuel is not a comfortable place to be in at all. That is why I would not have done as AC did and held for 1:40 before diverting after already flown for 15 hours. Without having all the facts available it looks on face value they brought the situation upon themselves by holding for too long, I am very eager to see the decision making process and other facts involved in waiting so long before diverting. BTW my understanding is their planned alternate was AMD which has had a notam since August regarding the lack of parking stands for non schedule flights.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Both runways have been upgraded to Code F, which means they can accommodate larger aircraft like the Airbus A380.
I also understand that there are some problems with using the secondary runway 14/32, for instance Trombay Hill and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) nuclear complex lying under the flight path.


I am not sure about that, our 747-8s are not permitted on 14/32. With the conditions on the day I am not sure of the VOR on 32 would have enabled a landing on 32. 14 normally has a tailwind limit I think of 8 kts.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
1) Everything was in chaos, this is what happens when you close the worlds busiest single runway airport in its peak time.


I think that crown for the worlds busiest single runway airport belongs to LGW. Who told you their planned ALTN was DEL ? I was told it was AMD, I will love to see the facts once they become available.

If it happened as you stated and they declared an emergency before leaving BOM, why didn’t they go to PNQ (Pune), just 67 nm east of BOM, or AMD (Ahmedabad) 238 nm north from BOM, or GOI (Goa) that is 229 nm south of BOM. They elected instead to HYD which is 336 nm east of BOM ? The decision making process is even harder to understand in that set of circumstances.

I can understand waiting for 10-15 minutes to get more information regarding the disabled aircraft, get the DATIS for options, and to build the option in the FMC. But to ditch DEL if that was their planned ALTN and burn the transit fuel to DEL holding at BOM during monsoon season with TS , low cloud, rain, and strong winds with a disabled aircraft is a strange situation. Even stranger not telling ATC they are landing at BOM if they had in fact declared mayday fuel at BOM (in an emergency I don’t request anything, I tell ATC what I require. I do what I need to do to get a safe outcome).


Dear Zeke,

1)I understand there has been a misconception, I have written already, their main planned alternate WAS AMD from first only.
2)You cannot land into PNQ, you require certain approval letters and documents, which the schedule flights have. Without it you will be calling yourself a free missile. (Unless you dont have any fuel, which by the way was realised when en-route HYD)
3)You cannot divert into GOI, same status as PNQ
4)You cannot land a Boeing 787 in any place you want. Its not the runway length that matters, its the airports ICAO and IATA certification that does. If you know this then please disregard this point.
5)In-Case an aircraft cannot land BOM, the planned alternates have always been AMD, then HYD, then BLR, then MAA, then DEL.
6)AMD and BLR are confirmed alternates given by DGCA for BOM for Airliners, You cannot change them. Rest are optional.
7)Please read my first comment again. Properly. In Detail. Most of the answers are there.
8)Mumbai is now the worlds busiest single runway airport. We overtook LGW I think this year in June/July.

I hope I can be more usefull, any more questions by you or any other members, please ask away.
Regards
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11322
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:46 pm

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
2)You cannot land into PNQ, you require certain approval letters and documents, which the schedule flights have. Without it you will be calling yourself a free missile. (Unless you dont have any fuel, which by the way was realised when en-route HYD)
3)You cannot divert into GOI, same status as PNQ
4)You cannot land a Boeing 787 in any place you want. Its not the runway length that matters, its the airports ICAO and IATA certification that does. If you know this then please disregard this point.


None of that applies in an emergency. That is for normal operations at the planning stage. I fly right over Port Blair on some flights, if I have a genuine emergency I would not hesitate landing there. Pune and Goa have civil enclaves on the airport that are managed by the airport authorities if I am not mistaken.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
5)In-Case an aircraft cannot land BOM, the planned alternates have always been AMD, then HYD, then BLR, then MAA, then DEL.
6)AMD and BLR are confirmed alternates given by DGCA for BOM for Airliners, You cannot change them. Rest are optional..


There is no such requirement in the AIP.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
8)Mumbai is now the worlds busiest single runway airport. We overtook LGW I think this year in June/July..


It still is not really the busiest single runway, it has two time periods a day where cross runway operations are taken place 0000-0330Z and 1130-1430Z and Sundays 0000-0400Z and 0930-1430Z. 27 is used for arrivals and departures from aprons E, G, H, M T, and GA. 14 is used for departures from Apron A, C, D
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:21 pm

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
2)You cannot land into PNQ, you require certain approval letters and documents, which the schedule flights have. Without it you will be calling yourself a free missile. (Unless you dont have any fuel, which by the way was realised when en-route HYD)


No country is going to shoot down a civilian airliner on a paperwork technicality. All you need to a paved surface to set it down. Any airfield is fair game.

Those alternates look horrible. They all are single runway airports except Delhi. Even HYD is a single active runway.

Isn't there a Code E runway in Praful Patel's hometown used exclusively by Cessnas?
 
2Holer4Longhaul
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:03 am

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:36 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
VarunSolanki747 wrote:
2)You cannot land into PNQ, you require certain approval letters and documents, which the schedule flights have. Without it you will be calling yourself a free missile. (Unless you dont have any fuel, which by the way was realised when en-route HYD)


No country is going to shoot down a civilian airliner on a paperwork technicality. All you need to a paved surface to set it down. Any airfield is fair game.

Those alternates look horrible. They all are single runway airports except Delhi. Even HYD is a single active runway.

Isn't there a Code E runway in Praful Patel's hometown used exclusively by Cessnas?

That's straight-up wrong. The number of runways is irrelevant. Their lengths, widths, and orientations matter; so do the facilities at the airport, and its IATA and ICAO certifications. A runway only used by Cessnas is probably not capable of handling a widebody, and the field around it certainly isn't certified to nor capable of doing it.
HYD, on the other hand, has a long-enough runway and regularly refuels 787s.

There may be a case to be made for Indian ATC here, but every claim you make makes them look guiltier and you less credible.
A junkie for A340s, A380s, and of course Her Majesty the Boeing 747. I wish they were financially viable, but it is not to be.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:10 pm

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
That's straight-up wrong. The number of runways is irrelevant. Their lengths, widths, and orientations matter; so do the facilities at the airport, and its IATA and ICAO certifications. A runway only used by Cessnas is probably not capable of handling a widebody, and the field around it certainly isn't certified to nor capable of doing it.

You missed my point. India has 30 unused ie., without any commercial traffic airports most with minimum 7500 ft runways, hence used only by trainee Cessenas.

I am guessing a lightly loaded AC 789 4K should be able to stop on 7500 dry pavement in a worst-case scenario.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
HYD, on the other hand, has a long-enough runway and regularly refuels 787s..


This is where AC crew showed piss poor planning.

They were #37 in a 40 lineup (diversions + scheduled) at a single active runway airport not used to handling that much traffic. This is not LHR to land one at every 90 seconds.
Going by a.net logic, assuming there were fake pilots, Blue rodeos known to take down runway lights and AI planes with missing panel screws.

One tire burst or another minor incident, they would be screwed if they don't have fuel to go back at least to Begumpet(VOHY), 14 miles backtrack.

BTW, BA operates 789 to HYD, QR used to operate 788. Pool and Sushi are available. These are not the issues.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
There may be a case to be made for Indian ATC here, but every claim you make makes them look guiltier and you less credible.


Other than a.net pundits, Lucky and Indians, even professional pilots are now questioning crew actions.

Sure at first glance (not knowing other issues) one might have thought this is strictly an ATC issue, but look deep into it, it is a self-made emergency which could have gone terribly wrong.

Mere luck it turned out to be a-OK.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11322
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:16 pm

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
That's straight-up wrong. The number of runways is irrelevant. Their lengths, widths, and orientations matter; so do the facilities at the airport, and its IATA and ICAO certifications. A runway only used by Cessnas is probably not capable of handling a widebody, and the field around it certainly isn't certified to nor capable of doing it.
HYD, on the other hand, has a long-enough runway and regularly refuels 787s.

There may be a case to be made for Indian ATC here, but every claim you make makes them look guiltier and you less credible.


This offshoot has started because a poster up in the the thread suggest that AC declared MAYDAY fuel whilst holding at BOM. MAYDAY fuel means you have less than 30 minutes of fuel left. HYD is 1 hrs flight time from BOM, less if holding to the east of BOM, but in any case significantly more than 30 minutes.

In an emergency you do whatever is best for the safest outcome. That might be ditching, off airport landing, landing at a GA airport, landing at a domestic airport, military etc. It’s an emergency, and you do what you need to do, you don’t care if they dont have a tow bar, tug, or refuel truck that is comparable with a 787.

My point was is they did in fact declare MAYDAY fuel at BOM like was suggested in a previous post, why didn’t they land at BOM or PNQ ? How do you do a 1 hr flight with only 30 minutes of fuel ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
2Holer4Longhaul
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:03 am

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:06 pm

zeke wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
That's straight-up wrong. The number of runways is irrelevant. Their lengths, widths, and orientations matter; so do the facilities at the airport, and its IATA and ICAO certifications. A runway only used by Cessnas is probably not capable of handling a widebody, and the field around it certainly isn't certified to nor capable of doing it.
HYD, on the other hand, has a long-enough runway and regularly refuels 787s.

There may be a case to be made for Indian ATC here, but every claim you make makes them look guiltier and you less credible.


This offshoot has started because a poster up in the the thread suggest that AC declared MAYDAY fuel whilst holding at BOM. MAYDAY fuel means you have less than 30 minutes of fuel left. HYD is 1 hrs flight time from BOM, less if holding to the east of BOM, but in any case significantly more than 30 minutes.

In an emergency you do whatever is best for the safest outcome. That might be ditching, off airport landing, landing at a GA airport, landing at a domestic airport, military etc. It’s an emergency, and you do what you need to do, you don’t care if they dont have a tow bar, tug, or refuel truck that is comparable with a 787.

My point was is they did in fact declare MAYDAY fuel at BOM like was suggested in a previous post, why didn’t they land at BOM or PNQ ? How do you do a 1 hr flight with only 30 minutes of fuel ?

When they declared Mayday fuel the first time, Indian ATC was supposed to give them priority for some landing strip immediately. Whatever idiocy the Canadians are guilty of, Indian ATC is not allowed to ignore 1 mayday call, much less 3.
The point we're all making isn't that the AC crew were lambs; it's that Indian ATC weren't, either.
A junkie for A340s, A380s, and of course Her Majesty the Boeing 747. I wish they were financially viable, but it is not to be.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:49 pm

Read zeke's post again.

You cannot declare MAYDAY FUEL(claiming you have only 30 min fuel) and insist on landing ONLY at HYD(60+ minutes away).

What HYD supposed to with ~20 diversions and ~20 schedule landings? Send them away and keep runway free for one hour.

There is a sarcastic comment about MAYDAY FUEL. Apparently, a European LCC crew declared MAYDAY FUEL, Approach says you are #3. The pilot got mad and said I declared MAYDAY FUEL, I should be #1, Approach said two other planes from your airline declared MAYDAY FUEL, ahead of you.

The headline makes everyone thinks it is ATC fault.

Again, TSB has no active investigation, suggests they landed above reserve, a non-event.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4473
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:13 pm

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
zeke wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
I guess we have to wait for a more complete description of the events.

Regarding Zeke's "You also have to commit to an airport to declare MAYDAY FUEL", I don't know what he means by commitment as emergency should be declared when "the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel".

Regarding dtw2hyd's "low fuel is not an emergency" is an inaccurate statement, as it is not clear if he is referring to "MINIMUM FUEL" or "MAYDAY FUEL" situation.


Sorry I didn’t see your post before.

Minimum fuel is declared when no other options are available and any further delay will result in landing below final reserve fuel. I.e. AC could not declare minimum fuel at BOM until they had burnt the fuel that ruled out a landing at any other airport. Once committed to an airport, if fuel drops below the final reserve level, mayday fuel is declared.

I saw the conversion dtw2hyd was having as the difference between minimum fuel and mayday fuel. I agree with what their comments, minimum fuel is not an emergency, nor does it require ATC priority. The minimum that one can land with is 30 minutes, and landing with that much it is perfectly legal. ATC has no requirement to give priority handling to land with more than 30 minutes once minimum fuel is declared.

Those of us that are older would have been around when long haul flights didn’t have the luxury of having 2 hrs of fuel available in the tanks on arrival, 30 minutes of fuel is not a comfortable place to be in at all. That is why I would not have done as AC did and held for 1:40 before diverting after already flown for 15 hours. Without having all the facts available it looks on face value they brought the situation upon themselves by holding for too long, I am very eager to see the decision making process and other facts involved in waiting so long before diverting. BTW my understanding is their planned alternate was AMD which has had a notam since August regarding the lack of parking stands for non schedule flights.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Both runways have been upgraded to Code F, which means they can accommodate larger aircraft like the Airbus A380.
I also understand that there are some problems with using the secondary runway 14/32, for instance Trombay Hill and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) nuclear complex lying under the flight path.


I am not sure about that, our 747-8s are not permitted on 14/32. With the conditions on the day I am not sure of the VOR on 32 would have enabled a landing on 32. 14 normally has a tailwind limit I think of 8 kts.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
1) Everything was in chaos, this is what happens when you close the worlds busiest single runway airport in its peak time.


I think that crown for the worlds busiest single runway airport belongs to LGW. Who told you their planned ALTN was DEL ? I was told it was AMD, I will love to see the facts once they become available.

If it happened as you stated and they declared an emergency before leaving BOM, why didn’t they go to PNQ (Pune), just 67 nm east of BOM, or AMD (Ahmedabad) 238 nm north from BOM, or GOI (Goa) that is 229 nm south of BOM. They elected instead to HYD which is 336 nm east of BOM ? The decision making process is even harder to understand in that set of circumstances.

I can understand waiting for 10-15 minutes to get more information regarding the disabled aircraft, get the DATIS for options, and to build the option in the FMC. But to ditch DEL if that was their planned ALTN and burn the transit fuel to DEL holding at BOM during monsoon season with TS , low cloud, rain, and strong winds with a disabled aircraft is a strange situation. Even stranger not telling ATC they are landing at BOM if they had in fact declared mayday fuel at BOM (in an emergency I don’t request anything, I tell ATC what I require. I do what I need to do to get a safe outcome).


Dear Zeke,

1)I understand there has been a misconception, I have written already, their main planned alternate WAS AMD from first only.
2)You cannot land into PNQ, you require certain approval letters and documents, which the schedule flights have. Without it you will be calling yourself a free missile. (Unless you dont have any fuel, which by the way was realised when en-route HYD)
3)You cannot divert into GOI, same status as PNQ
4)You cannot land a Boeing 787 in any place you want. Its not the runway length that matters, its the airports ICAO and IATA certification that does. If you know this then please disregard this point.
5)In-Case an aircraft cannot land BOM, the planned alternates have always been AMD, then HYD, then BLR, then MAA, then DEL.
6)AMD and BLR are confirmed alternates given by DGCA for BOM for Airliners, You cannot change them. Rest are optional.
7)Please read my first comment again. Properly. In Detail. Most of the answers are there.
8)Mumbai is now the worlds busiest single runway airport. We overtook LGW I think this year in June/July.

I hope I can be more usefull, any more questions by you or any other members, please ask away.
Regards


As Zeke points out, what you state is very incorrect in an emergency. If a 787 is about to become a glider, or has a fire on-board, are you going to tell me they couldn't land at PNQ or GOI without an approval letter?

I think you are having trouble distinguishing normal operation with an emergency situation. If AC had to land at PNQ in an emergency, they would land at PNQ.

As pointed out, when the EK SEA flight had a severe fuel emergency, Canadian ATC offered them both YYJ and YXX. The airplane wasn't even bound for Canada. Neither get 777 service or are likely well equipped to handle a 77W. (I suspect they weren't offered PAE or BFI near SEA because the runways are the same orientation as SEA, in which the crosswind limits were exceeded. BLI was closer but the pavement can't support the weight of a 777W, AFAIK.)

Point is, do you think Canadian ATC said, "sorry you can't land at YXX in an emergency because you require certain approval letters and documents, which the schedule flights have. Without it you will be calling yourself a free missile."?

That's ludicrous.

Canadian ATC offered them the nearest airports, with proper runway orientations for the wind conditions and can safely land a 77W. This is for an airplane that wasn't even scheduled to operate to their country. Period. No questions asked. End of story.
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:59 pm

Dear everyone who cant understand or read, (very sorry)
Please read it slowly and nicely, and surely to read it fully.
Please don't get offended, I am not proving anyone wrong, I just am putting the real facts out. Do not forget this forum clearly exists so I and you can debate and learn something.

I am writing this the third time
NO unscheduled aircraft can land at Pune Air Force Base.
NO UNSCHEDULED AIRCRAFT
like clear NO

All airlines flying into Mumbai have alternates ->
Firstly - Ahmedabad VAAH/AMD ( CONFIRMED YOU CANT CHANGE THIS)
Secondly - Hyderabad VOHS/HYD ( CONFIRMED YOU CANT CHANGE THIS)
Thirdly - Bengaluru VOBL/BLR ( Optional )
etc etc depending on the distance, type of aircraft, type of airport...
So all aircraft which depart for Mumbai have fuel for these three alternates.
This happens in all cockpits around the world I didnt need to explain this.

oh god I am writing this again. Ok so no aircraft can land into Pune because it is a military base, you guys seem to know it but still its going over everyone's head. Only scheduled flights are allowed. And even if the scheduled flight misses its departure slot or arrival slot, it is not allowed to depart or arrive into Pune. It has to wait for another clearance from the unknown military head. It is that strict. Pune airport is also has certain closure times which I am not aware of.
Same happens over Atlantic. When an aircraft has emergency they either divert to Iceland, GooseBay or Shannon. While a clearly the nearest airport is, namely Thule Air Force Base, Greenland is there.

Q-Does this mean no pax aircraft in emergency can land at an military base?
A-Yes, it can. It depends on the seriousness of the emergency, like completely fuel exhaustion or complete engine failure or complete electrical or hydraulic failure etc. Failures which do not harm the aircraft such as having fuel emergency but having enough fuel to divert to alternate which is not a military base or cabin decompression or rude passenger or display failure or engine oil temp high etc are enough reasons for the aircraft to head to another airport.

Fact- This is why ETOPS exists^

Now back to Mumbai-
All airliners have 3 alternates as said before.
In the case of ACA46 which was operating a scheduled flight into Mumbai had alternate fuel up to its third alternate which my guess is Delhi VIDP/DEL because ACA staff is available there in order to help and the flight crew is familiar with the airport. Makes sense right?
The next 2 alternates are First being AMD and Second being HYD. Makes sense both airport can accommodate the 787.
But what the crew and dispatch was not planned for, is that both AMD and HYD will be closed due to having aircraft over capacity. You cannot land there. The airport is already parking aircraft's on taxiway. Makes sense. Therefore last alternate DEL should come up. But how are they gonna reach DEL if they wasted that fuel for holding above BOM?
So ACA declared a Fuel Emergency. Don't pull me into the debate saying it was a MAYDAY or FUEL EMERGENCY radio callout. But if it helps my friend heard ACA say MAYDAY on the frequency.
Once that came into place, Mumbai Approach handed off the aircraft to Mumbai Center, Mumbai Center further cleared aircraft to climb FL250 and head direct HYD to land on runway 09L. So ACA46 had enough fuel to make it to HYD but only if it went direct otherwise it would have gone down. I don't have access to the radio recordings so what happened on that day will not be known until a report is removed, but we can clearly guess it was a clear mayhem on the frequency including multiple aircraft declaring fuel emergency. In my case professionalism was displayed by both teams and in the end everyone made it home to their friends and families.

Q-So why didn't they divert to Pune?
A-Why divert to Pune when you can make it to Hyderabad.

Q-So why weren't they given priority?
A-We don't know what was the situation on the frequency but it was definitely a mayhem with multiple aircraft declaring fuel emergency.

If you feel my post is offending you, then im sorry
If you still feel my post is offending you, then you need to read from starting.
If you have any questions please ask away,

Thank you
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:40 pm

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
...Why divert to Pune when you can make it to Hyderabad.


Because you declared MAYDAY FUEL. Assuming crew committed to HYD before declaring MAYDAY FUEL, going by the broad definition, it still means you will have below final reserve when you land at HYD.

What if there are planes parked on HYD Taxiway and one plane gets disabled on the runway.
What if you have to go around?

787 has excellent gliding capabilities and crew has to literally force it down to earth, but do we need a new episode of Hyderabad Glider,

There is nothing wrong in ATC asking them to go somewhere closer like PNQ or where there is no traffic like VOHY. I think the crew was screaming MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY whenever ATC says something.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:12 pm

AC46 declared a Fuel Emergency. The MAYDAY phrase was used, at least once, maybe four times.
Somebody wrote:
Once that came into place, Mumbai Approach handed off the aircraft to Mumbai Center, Mumbai Center further cleared aircraft to climb FL250 and head direct HYD.


This is a TECHNICAL QUESTION coming up.
What benefit was it, in a low fuel situation, to climb to 25,000 feet en route?
1. Was the distance to HYD enough that fuel savings would be made by flying at a higher altitude?
2. Or is it simply that it makes sense to gain altitude whilst you still have fuel, giving you more options if/when you become a glider?
3. Or ATC requirements; perhaps the skies at lower altitudes were already choked with other traffic.
4. Or is it simply geography; did the direct route take them over Mt Everest or K2?

Please don't jump down my throat; I'm asking the questions in order to better understand the thought processes that might affect a modern airliner crew, both in general terms, but also specifically in this case..
I was going to add a witty sign-off, but all the best ones have already been taken.
 
User avatar
ksfo777
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:08 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
VarunSolanki747 wrote:
...Why divert to Pune when you can make it to Hyderabad.


Because you declared MAYDAY FUEL. Assuming crew committed to HYD before declaring MAYDAY FUEL, going by the broad definition, it still means you will have below final reserve when you land at HYD.

What if there are planes parked on HYD Taxiway and one plane gets disabled on the runway.
What if you have to go around?

787 has excellent gliding capabilities and crew has to literally force it down to earth, but do we need a new episode of Hyderabad Glider,

There is nothing wrong in ATC asking them to go somewhere closer like PNQ or where there is no traffic like VOHY. I think the crew was screaming MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY whenever ATC says something.


Do you know that for a fact that ATC tried to divert them to PNQ or are you making things up as you always do here on this board? How do you know that they have airplanes parked at HYD??

I think we had enough of your nonsense.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:16 pm

ksfo777 wrote:
I think we had enough of your nonsense.


I sure have... Look there will be a time an place for this guy to go on about how AC screwed up... maybe they did.

The point with this thread which DTW2HYD couldn't stick to was the fact that ATC didn't treat a series of Mayday calls seriously. As I said and will continue to say, it is not ATC's job to play Judge, Jury and Executioner about if a plane is in an emergency or not. When they hear the declaration, they respond with assistance not with "hmmm.... I wonder if they're in trouble or just 'cheating the system'".
Flown: C172-M/N/P/R/S , P2006T, PA-34-200T, Been on: ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER, MD-82/83, 757-200, 767-300, F28-4000.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:46 pm

ksfo777 wrote:
Do you know that for a fact that ATC tried to divert them to PNQ or are you making things up as you always do here on this board? .


So what do you think ATC said, Go ditch somewhere?

ksfo777 wrote:
How do you know that they have airplanes parked at HYD??.

Read my non-sense up thread

These pilots should be back in the SIM at a minimum.
 
maxudaskin
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:33 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:51 pm

Let's quit arguing and look at facts. I have my sources listed at the bottom of this post.

The pilots declared an emergency. That we know. It is reported that they declared it four times.

Minimum fuel:
"The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having
committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may
result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel."


This means that a pilot MUST advise ATC about a low fuel situation IF any changes to the clearance given MAY result in landing with less than the final reserve fuel.

Mayday Fuel:
"The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY,
FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing
can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel."


The pilot MUST declare "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL" when it is calculated that the aircraft WILL land with less than the final reserve fuel.

Based off of the reports, we know that the pilots calculated that they were going to land with a maximum of [Final Reserve Fuel] - 1 minute.

They did not declare an emergency because they thought it would be fun; they declared an emergency because they were required to by law.

That being said, arguing like this over what you believe ATC said is neither productive to the conversation or appropriate for this forum.

See this ICAO document: http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/ ... 20fuel.pdf
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:17 pm

maxudaskin wrote:
Let's quit arguing and look at facts. I have my sources listed at the bottom of this post.

The pilots declared an emergency. That we know. It is reported that they declared it four times.

Minimum fuel:
"The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having
committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may
result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel."


This means that a pilot MUST advise ATC about a low fuel situation IF any changes to the clearance given MAY result in landing with less than the final reserve fuel.

Mayday Fuel:
"The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY,
FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing
can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel."


The pilot MUST declare "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL" when it is calculated that the aircraft WILL land with less than the final reserve fuel.

Based off of the reports, we know that the pilots calculated that they were going to land with a maximum of [Final Reserve Fuel] - 1 minute.

They did not declare an emergency because they thought it would be fun; they declared an emergency because they were required to by law.

That being said, arguing like this over what you believe ATC said is neither productive to the conversation or appropriate for this forum.

See this ICAO document: http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/ ... 20fuel.pdf


There are no facts, TSB report disappeared.

They picked a wrong airport just because there is a GHA and declared MAYDAY. FUEL.

16:00 UTC is 12:00 Noon at Brampton. OCC on lunch break???
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:35 pm

If Mr. Patel’s airport is the where a airline training academy is located about 40 east of BOM, I’ve been there, good luck finding charts for it in an airline cockpit. I had to ask a Tata Falcon crew to find it.

They climbed to F250 as being the most fuel efficient altitude, undoubtedly.
 
User avatar
AI126
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:03 am

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:10 pm

Guys, don't feed the trolls. It's not worth anyone's time.

Though one thing that has shocked, but not truly surprised, me is the pathetic state of Indian aviation infrastructure. As one of the top ten aviation markets in the world, you would think Indian infrastructure would be able to handle a runway excursion at one airport without much problem. Unfortunately, that SG excursion caused the entire country's airport infrastructure DEL down to be packed and choked to the breaking point to the point where a 14 hour long ULH flight was unable to get on the ground immediately (Don't care who was at fault, though my suspicion lies with AAI right now) when they declared an emergency (again, irrelevant whether it was legitimate or not).

If one airport shutting down causes the entire country's aviation infrastructure to be brought to the breaking point today, what is going to happen going forward? Traffic is growing at breakneck speed, and the investment in infrastructure has not kept up in India. I remember reading a report by AAI that they are anticipating needing to hire over one million air traffic controllers over the next decade but don't have the resources to train and deploy them. Let alone the almost complete lack of parking slots.

As air traffic continues to grow, incidents like this will only increase: More and more runway excursions will put planes in fuel emergencies. The sorry state of infrastructure in India is verging on deadly at this point for air travelers.
 
Shariq1138
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:41 am

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:16 pm

Call me another apologist or defender but it seems highly unlikely that the aircraft was THAT LOW on fuel & as discussed there calls for mayday had more to do with the various levels of priority associated with the mayday call (as discussed above) then actually being in dire need of concrete as most of us seem to think...

Also, I'm pretty sure no amount of incompetence would've denied the plane from making an emergency landing anywhere if that were indeed the case...

The plane was on hold for an hour over BOM then an extra 2hrs (approx.) shuttling between the alternate airport & then to HYD between which I assume it made its mayday calls... to both airports or just HYD would be interesting to determine also...

Surely there has to be a reason & a structure (as many have hinted alredi) on how the mayday process works!
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Crew
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:32 am

AI126 wrote:
Guys, don't feed the trolls. It's not worth anyone's time.

Though one thing that has shocked, but not truly surprised, me is the pathetic state of Indian aviation infrastructure. As one of the top ten aviation markets in the world, you would think Indian infrastructure would be able to handle a runway excursion at one airport without much problem. Unfortunately, that SG excursion caused the entire country's airport infrastructure DEL down to be packed and choked to the breaking point to the point where a 14 hour long ULH flight was unable to get on the ground immediately (Don't care who was at fault, though my suspicion lies with AAI right now) when they declared an emergency (again, irrelevant whether it was legitimate or not).

If one airport shutting down causes the entire country's aviation infrastructure to be brought to the breaking point today, what is going to happen going forward? Traffic is growing at breakneck speed, and the investment in infrastructure has not kept up in India. I remember reading a report by AAI that they are anticipating needing to hire over one million air traffic controllers over the next decade but don't have the resources to train and deploy them. Let alone the almost complete lack of parking slots.

As air traffic continues to grow, incidents like this will only increase: More and more runway excursions will put planes in fuel emergencies. The sorry state of infrastructure in India is verging on deadly at this point for air travelers.

I agree, but I'm not sure one million controllers is an accurate number. The FAA only employs about 14,000 controllers, and has hired roughly 8,000 in the past decade (still with a net loss because of so many retirements). I'm not sure there are a million controllers in the entire world, civil and military. My understanding is that for roughly every 25,000 applicants, the FAA hopes to send 1,000 to the academy, and hopes to retain about 500 at the conclusion of the academy. Virtually every country has at one point in time struggled to hire controllers, so I can imagine that countries with explosive growth like India is seeing have a genuinely difficult time maintaining adequate staffing levels.

In any event, I'm given the impression that there are some definite procedure issues in this case. The fact alone that it took four attempts to have their emergency acknowledged is evident to me that there needs to be some pretty major retraining done here. An aircraft declaring an emergency is no reason for a controller to panic by any means, but it certainly demands attention on the first try. It's also a matter of infrastructure, as you mentioned, because even the best controllers will struggle with too much traffic in an ill-equipped system.
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:09 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
VarunSolanki747 wrote:
...Why divert to Pune when you can make it to Hyderabad.


Because you declared MAYDAY FUEL. Assuming crew committed to HYD before declaring MAYDAY FUEL, going by the broad definition, it still means you will have below final reserve when you land at HYD.

What if there are planes parked on HYD Taxiway and one plane gets disabled on the runway.
What if you have to go around?

787 has excellent gliding capabilities and crew has to literally force it down to earth, but do we need a new episode of Hyderabad Glider,

There is nothing wrong in ATC asking them to go somewhere closer like PNQ or where there is no traffic like VOHY. I think the crew was screaming MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY whenever ATC says something.


dtw2hyd you yourself have given the answer in previous posts.
"go see fr24 playback data"

not a single aircraft diverted to PNQ
are they all idiots diverting to AMD,HYD,DEL,BLR,MAA etc?
obviously not. even after declaring MAYDAY, the ACA crew knew that they cannot land at PNQ, but they can surely make it to HYD, thats why they continued to HYD. makes sense right? if they knew they wouldnt have enough fuel to HYD, they would have def forced into PNQ, which they didnt do.

So now looking at Fr24 data we can see that the mayday and holding incident happened over mumbai, and everyone now knows how screwed up the airspace was.

and lastly never trust indian media. they are big jokers.
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:13 am

AI126 wrote:
Guys, don't feed the trolls. It's not worth anyone's time.

Though one thing that has shocked, but not truly surprised, me is the pathetic state of Indian aviation infrastructure. As one of the top ten aviation markets in the world, you would think Indian infrastructure would be able to handle a runway excursion at one airport without much problem. Unfortunately, that SG excursion caused the entire country's airport infrastructure DEL down to be packed and choked to the breaking point to the point where a 14 hour long ULH flight was unable to get on the ground immediately (Don't care who was at fault, though my suspicion lies with AAI right now) when they declared an emergency (again, irrelevant whether it was legitimate or not).

If one airport shutting down causes the entire country's aviation infrastructure to be brought to the breaking point today, what is going to happen going forward? Traffic is growing at breakneck speed, and the investment in infrastructure has not kept up in India. I remember reading a report by AAI that they are anticipating needing to hire over one million air traffic controllers over the next decade but don't have the resources to train and deploy them. Let alone the almost complete lack of parking slots.

As air traffic continues to grow, incidents like this will only increase: More and more runway excursions will put planes in fuel emergencies. The sorry state of infrastructure in India is verging on deadly at this point for air travelers.


This is not a tragic incident
did anyone die? nope
did anyone get injured? nope
then how can you call this a failure of India ATC infrastructure?
all the flight crews of all the respective aircraft, the dispatch centers, the ground crew and finally the ATC. they all played their part therefore there was no major incident.
i'd say Indian ATC is definitely a good one
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:24 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
AC46 declared a Fuel Emergency. The MAYDAY phrase was used, at least once, maybe four times.
Somebody wrote:
Once that came into place, Mumbai Approach handed off the aircraft to Mumbai Center, Mumbai Center further cleared aircraft to climb FL250 and head direct HYD.


This is a TECHNICAL QUESTION coming up.
What benefit was it, in a low fuel situation, to climb to 25,000 feet en route?
1. Was the distance to HYD enough that fuel savings would be made by flying at a higher altitude?
2. Or is it simply that it makes sense to gain altitude whilst you still have fuel, giving you more options if/when you become a glider?
3. Or ATC requirements; perhaps the skies at lower altitudes were already choked with other traffic.
4. Or is it simply geography; did the direct route take them over Mt Everest or K2?

Please don't jump down my throat; I'm asking the questions in order to better understand the thought processes that might affect a modern airliner crew, both in general terms, but also specifically in this case..

Hi,

HYD is somewhat 400nm away so in order to achieve fuel efficiency you have to climb. In the 787 FMC when you hit alternate HYD it will automatically give optimum FlightLevel in VNAV Page. It will also give Recommended and Maximum. Then ACA crew will request it and climb.
The FMC Page below here is of 777 and has the same layout in the 787.

Image

Regards.
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11322
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:31 am

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
I am writing this the third time
NO unscheduled aircraft can land at Pune Air Force Base.
NO UNSCHEDULED AIRCRAFT
like clear NO


Unscheduled relates to nominating that airport at the planning stage. There are many unscheduled flights into and out of PNQ, both in aircraft and helicopters. It is not that unusual to see over a dozen private aircraft on the ramp. There is also maintenance facilities and a charter operator based there that have ad-ohc movements associated with their business.

That does not apply to an emergency, in an emergency you do what is required for a safe outcome and then notify the DGCA afterwards. From the DGCA CARs

"If an emergency situation which endangers the safety of the aeroplane or persons necessitates the taking of action which involves a violation of regulations or procedures, the pilot-in-command / operator shall notify the nearest Air Safety office of DGCA without delay in accordance with the procedure as prescribed in CAR, Section 5, Series ‘C’, Part-I."

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
All airlines flying into Mumbai have alternates ->
Firstly - Ahmedabad VAAH/AMD ( CONFIRMED YOU CANT CHANGE THIS)
Secondly - Hyderabad VOHS/HYD ( CONFIRMED YOU CANT CHANGE THIS)
Thirdly - Bengaluru VOBL/BLR ( Optional )
etc etc depending on the distance, type of aircraft, type of airport...
So all aircraft which depart for Mumbai have fuel for these three alternates.


Simply not true, the is no requirement to hold 3 alternates, sometimes you will need more than one, but in most cases none or one.

Lets look at the DGCA CARs http://dgca.nic.in/cars/D8O-O3.pdf

Destination alternate aerodromes
For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules, at least one destination alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the flight plans, unless:
a) the duration of the flight from the departure aerodrome, or from the point of in-flight re-planning, to the destination aerodrome is such that, taking into account all meteorological conditions and operational information relevant to the flight, at the estimated time of use, a reasonable certainty exists that:
1) the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions; and
2) separate runways are usable at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome with at least one runway having an operational instrument approach procedure; or
b) the aerodrome of intended landing is isolated and:
1) a standard instrument approach procedure is prescribed for the aerodrome of intended landing;
2) a point of no return has been determined; and
3) a flight shall not be continued past the point of no return unless available current meteorological information indicates that the following meteorological conditions will exist at the estimated time of use:
I. a cloud base of at least 300 m (1 000 ft.) above the minimum associated with the instrument approach procedure; and
II. visibility of at least 5.5 km (3 NM) or of 4 km (2 NM) more than the minimum associated with the instrument approach procedure.
Note.— Separate runways are two or more runways at the same aerodrome configured such that if one runway is closed, operations to the other runway(s) can be conducted.


Black and white in the DGCA CARs that you can plan to BOM with just 1 or 0 alternates.

KHI is a perfectly acceptable alternate for BOM at the planning stage https://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/edo ... d/AOP1.pdf

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
This happens in all cockpits around the world I didnt need to explain this.


What you are saying is not true, I have been operating into BOM for longer than I care to remember. The DGCA CARS and the AIP India do not support what you are saying.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
Ok so no aircraft can land into Pune because it is a military base, you guys seem to know it but still its going over everyone's head. Only scheduled flights are allowed.


We are talking about a emergency diversion, which they will accept. Just Like I would use Port Blair in an emergency if over the Bay of Bengal. In an emergency you can break the normal rules. By accident many years ago Saudi landed a 747 at the Tambaram AFS.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
Same happens over Atlantic. When an aircraft has emergency they either divert to Iceland, GooseBay or Shannon. While a clearly the nearest airport is, namely Thule Air Force Base, Greenland is there.


Thule is used as an emergency diversion airport, but not to my knowledge as a planned ETOPS alternate. Diversions into military airports are not that uncommon, just look at the Air France A380 recent diversion to Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay. One of our 777s had an emergency diversion to Eareckson Air Station in Shemya a few years ago. There is now a formal agreement in place now for Hindon AFS to be used as an alternate for IGI.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
All airliners have 3 alternates as said before.


Which is utter rubbish, refer to DGCA CARs, AIP India, and ICAO.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
But what the crew and dispatch was not planned for, is that both AMD and HYD will be closed due to having aircraft over capacity. You cannot land there. The airport is already parking aircraft's on taxiway.


Of course you can land there, running out of parking stands is not a reason not to land if you are running out of fuel. Halifax had 47 aircraft divert after 9/11

Image

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
So ACA declared a Fuel Emergency. Don't pull me into the debate saying it was a MAYDAY or FUEL EMERGENCY radio callout. But if it helps my friend heard ACA say MAYDAY on the frequency.
Once that came into place, Mumbai Approach handed off the aircraft to Mumbai Center, Mumbai Center further cleared aircraft to climb FL250 and head direct HYD to land on runway 09L.


Lets look at the DGCA CARs http://dgca.nic.in/cars/D8O-O3.pdf and not something some enthusiast has put on a website.

2.2.4.7.3 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel estimated to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel."


aerodrome is defined as

Aerodrome. A defined area on land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement of aircraft.


final reserve fuel is defined as

final reserve fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel on arrival at the destination alternate aerodrome, or the destination aerodrome when no destination alternate aerodrome is required:
1) for a reciprocating engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 45 minutes; or
2) for a turbine-engined aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions;


Note it says "nearest aerodrome", holding east of BOM the nearest aerodrome is either PNQ or BOM, not HYD, BLR, or DEL which are over 30 minutes away.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
So ACA46 had enough fuel to make it to HYD but only if it went direct otherwise it would have gone down. I don't have access to the radio recordings so what happened on that day will not be known until a report is removed, but we can clearly guess it was a clear mayhem on the frequency including multiple aircraft declaring fuel emergency. In my case professionalism was displayed by both teams and in the end everyone made it home to their friends and families.


If they declared MAYDAY fuel at BOM like you have now claimed twice on this thread, and went to HYD, they declared a false emergency. It is an hour to fly from BOM to HYD, something you cannot do with only 30 minutes of fuel. Rumors I am now hearing is they had final reserve intact on landing at HYD. Thai also declared a fuel emergency and landed in BOM in a legitimate fuel emergency state.


SheikhDjibouti wrote:
This is a TECHNICAL QUESTION coming up.
What benefit was it, in a low fuel situation, to climb to 25,000 feet en route?
1. Was the distance to HYD enough that fuel savings would be made by flying at a higher altitude?


The most fuel efficient profile on short sectors in a jet is generally maximum thrust climb to top of descent and then idle thrust to landing. We plan on climbing to FL410 if using HYD as an ALTN for BOM.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:06 am

zeke wrote:
VarunSolanki747 wrote:
I am writing this the third time
NO unscheduled aircraft can land at Pune Air Force Base.
NO UNSCHEDULED AIRCRAFT
like clear NO


Unscheduled relates to nominating that airport at the planning stage. There are many unscheduled flights into and out of PNQ, both in aircraft and helicopters. It is not that unusual to see over a dozen private aircraft on the ramp. There is also maintenance facilities and a charter operator based there that have ad-ohc movements associated with their business.

That does not apply to an emergency, in an emergency you do what is required for a safe outcome and then notify the DGCA afterwards. From the DGCA CARs

"If an emergency situation which endangers the safety of the aeroplane or persons necessitates the taking of action which involves a violation of regulations or procedures, the pilot-in-command / operator shall notify the nearest Air Safety office of DGCA without delay in accordance with the procedure as prescribed in CAR, Section 5, Series ‘C’, Part-I."

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
All airlines flying into Mumbai have alternates ->
Firstly - Ahmedabad VAAH/AMD ( CONFIRMED YOU CANT CHANGE THIS)
Secondly - Hyderabad VOHS/HYD ( CONFIRMED YOU CANT CHANGE THIS)
Thirdly - Bengaluru VOBL/BLR ( Optional )
etc etc depending on the distance, type of aircraft, type of airport...
So all aircraft which depart for Mumbai have fuel for these three alternates.


Simply not true, the is no requirement to hold 3 alternates, sometimes you will need more than one, but in most cases none or one.

Lets look at the DGCA CARs http://dgca.nic.in/cars/D8O-O3.pdf

Destination alternate aerodromes
For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules, at least one destination alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the flight plans, unless:
a) the duration of the flight from the departure aerodrome, or from the point of in-flight re-planning, to the destination aerodrome is such that, taking into account all meteorological conditions and operational information relevant to the flight, at the estimated time of use, a reasonable certainty exists that:
1) the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions; and
2) separate runways are usable at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome with at least one runway having an operational instrument approach procedure; or
b) the aerodrome of intended landing is isolated and:
1) a standard instrument approach procedure is prescribed for the aerodrome of intended landing;
2) a point of no return has been determined; and
3) a flight shall not be continued past the point of no return unless available current meteorological information indicates that the following meteorological conditions will exist at the estimated time of use:
I. a cloud base of at least 300 m (1 000 ft.) above the minimum associated with the instrument approach procedure; and
II. visibility of at least 5.5 km (3 NM) or of 4 km (2 NM) more than the minimum associated with the instrument approach procedure.
Note.— Separate runways are two or more runways at the same aerodrome configured such that if one runway is closed, operations to the other runway(s) can be conducted.


Black and white in the DGCA CARs that you can plan to BOM with just 1 or 0 alternates.

KHI is a perfectly acceptable alternate for BOM at the planning stage https://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/edo ... d/AOP1.pdf

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
This happens in all cockpits around the world I didnt need to explain this.


What you are saying is not true, I have been operating into BOM for longer than I care to remember. The DGCA CARS and the AIP India do not support what you are saying.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
Ok so no aircraft can land into Pune because it is a military base, you guys seem to know it but still its going over everyone's head. Only scheduled flights are allowed.


We are talking about a emergency diversion, which they will accept. Just Like I would use Port Blair in an emergency if over the Bay of Bengal. In an emergency you can break the normal rules. By accident many years ago Saudi landed a 747 at the Tambaram AFS.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
Same happens over Atlantic. When an aircraft has emergency they either divert to Iceland, GooseBay or Shannon. While a clearly the nearest airport is, namely Thule Air Force Base, Greenland is there.


Thule is used as an emergency diversion airport, but not to my knowledge as a planned ETOPS alternate. Diversions into military airports are not that uncommon, just look at the Air France A380 recent diversion to Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay. One of our 777s had an emergency diversion to Eareckson Air Station in Shemya a few years ago. There is now a formal agreement in place now for Hindon AFS to be used as an alternate for IGI.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
All airliners have 3 alternates as said before.


Which is utter rubbish, refer to DGCA CARs, AIP India, and ICAO.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
But what the crew and dispatch was not planned for, is that both AMD and HYD will be closed due to having aircraft over capacity. You cannot land there. The airport is already parking aircraft's on taxiway.


Of course you can land there, running out of parking stands is not a reason not to land if you are running out of fuel. Halifax had 47 aircraft divert after 9/11

Image

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
So ACA declared a Fuel Emergency. Don't pull me into the debate saying it was a MAYDAY or FUEL EMERGENCY radio callout. But if it helps my friend heard ACA say MAYDAY on the frequency.
Once that came into place, Mumbai Approach handed off the aircraft to Mumbai Center, Mumbai Center further cleared aircraft to climb FL250 and head direct HYD to land on runway 09L.


Lets look at the DGCA CARs http://dgca.nic.in/cars/D8O-O3.pdf and not something some enthusiast has put on a website.

2.2.4.7.3 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel estimated to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel."


aerodrome is defined as

Aerodrome. A defined area on land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement of aircraft.


final reserve fuel is defined as

final reserve fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel on arrival at the destination alternate aerodrome, or the destination aerodrome when no destination alternate aerodrome is required:
1) for a reciprocating engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 45 minutes; or
2) for a turbine-engined aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions;


Note it says "nearest aerodrome", holding east of BOM the nearest aerodrome is either PNQ or BOM, not HYD, BLR, or DEL which are over 30 minutes away.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
So ACA46 had enough fuel to make it to HYD but only if it went direct otherwise it would have gone down. I don't have access to the radio recordings so what happened on that day will not be known until a report is removed, but we can clearly guess it was a clear mayhem on the frequency including multiple aircraft declaring fuel emergency. In my case professionalism was displayed by both teams and in the end everyone made it home to their friends and families.


If they declared MAYDAY fuel at BOM like you have now claimed twice on this thread, and went to HYD, they declared a false emergency. It is an hour to fly from BOM to HYD, something you cannot do with only 30 minutes of fuel. Rumors I am now hearing is they had final reserve intact on landing at HYD. Thai also declared a fuel emergency and landed in BOM in a legitimate fuel emergency state.


SheikhDjibouti wrote:
This is a TECHNICAL QUESTION coming up.
What benefit was it, in a low fuel situation, to climb to 25,000 feet en route?
1. Was the distance to HYD enough that fuel savings would be made by flying at a higher altitude?


The most fuel efficient profile on short sectors in a jet is generally maximum thrust climb to top of descent and then idle thrust to landing. We plan on climbing to FL410 if using HYD as an ALTN for BOM.


1) All airliners flying anywhere around the world have 3 alternates. Mostly heavy aircraft. I just asked around for A320 and 737, they max plan 2 altenates in India.
What you are reading in DGCA site is the minimum requirements.
An alternate can be dropped given the conditions at the main destination landing airport are more than sufficient. Its clearly written there lol.
In the case of ACA46, Mumbai MET Office had already released a weather warning 2 days before the incident. The ACA dispatch and crew knew what they were facing when arriving into Mumbai.

2) No one alternated to Karachi on that day.
Everyone went to Bangalore or Ahmedabad.

3) Port Blair WAS a military airport.

4) Apon asking pilots who are based in Pune they said no widebody can land into Pune. I think theoretically it can, but obstructions, taxiway signs, length width etc etc might be the problem.

5) the Air France incident was a serious one because it physically damaged the aircrafts aerodynamic stability. Its results can be seen as -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862

6) So as said above and in my previous comments, only in serious conditions a passenger aircraft is allowed to land at a military base.

7) What happened to 9/11 can be taken into consideration as a similar event to Mumbai's. This was the same condition of Bangalore and Ahmedabad but aircraft were not parked on the runway.

8) DGCA is shitty, even I used to think why dont they divert to Pune but turns out yeah they have national security issues with it.

9) Ok so the part where i said that my friend heard ACA said Mayday on frequency is not said by some enthusiast on a site. He himself is a airline pilot so no reason for him to lie.

10) come on i know what an aerodrome or reserve fuel is. thumbs up on the sarcasm tho.

11) It is like a compulsory thing in India. You cannot divert to pune. Its like a permanent thing.

12) I would still wait for the report than say what happened on the flightdeck when they declared fuel emergency and why.
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11322
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:35 am

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
1) All airliners flying anywhere around the world have 3 alternates. Mostly heavy aircraft. I just asked around for A320 and 737, they max plan 2 altenates in India.
What you are reading in DGCA site is the minimum requirements.


I actually fly heavies worldwide including into BOM, I have never had 3 destination alternates. Normally 1, sometimes 0 (isolated airport), or two (destination and first alternate are below CAT 1). The DGCA rules are a copy and paste from ICAO.

DGCA has caught pilots from IndiGo, Air India and SpiceJet lying to ATC saying they have fuel emergencies to get priority for landing. They are the same people you are getting advice from. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... afety-risk

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
The ACA dispatch and crew knew what they were facing when arriving into Mumbai.


I looked at the historical TAFs for the time, there was no Wx forecast for the SpiceJet aircraft closing the runway.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
No one alternated to Karachi on that day. Everyone went to Bangalore or Ahmedabad.


The point was you stated which airports must be used for BOM which was not correct. Our flight to BOM at the time diverted to MAA.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
Apon asking pilots who are based in Pune they said no widebody can land into Pune. I think theoretically it can, but obstructions, taxiway signs, length width etc etc might be the problem.


The runway dimensions of 10/28 at PNQ are identical to 07/25 at YSSY that can land A380/747s. More than enough room to shutdown and park on P2 or P at PNQ. PNQ gets visits from military strategic transport aircraft.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
So as said above and in my previous comments, only in serious conditions a passenger aircraft is allowed to land at a military base.


An excess of air and significant absence of fuel is considered a significant condition hence the declaration of Mayday fuel.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:23 am

zeke wrote:
An excess of air and significant absence of fuel is considered a significant condition hence the declaration of Mayday fuel.


As I started reading that sentence I was convinced you were referring to particular posters on this thread, some of whom certainly have an excess of (hot) air! :lol:

Now that I have digested the full sentence, my compliments to you; it made me smile.
I was going to add a witty sign-off, but all the best ones have already been taken.
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:33 am

zeke wrote:
VarunSolanki747 wrote:
1) All airliners flying anywhere around the world have 3 alternates. Mostly heavy aircraft. I just asked around for A320 and 737, they max plan 2 altenates in India.
What you are reading in DGCA site is the minimum requirements.


I actually fly heavies worldwide including into BOM, I have never had 3 destination alternates. Normally 1, sometimes 0 (isolated airport), or two (destination and first alternate are below CAT 1). The DGCA rules are a copy and paste from ICAO.

DGCA has caught pilots from IndiGo, Air India and SpiceJet lying to ATC saying they have fuel emergencies to get priority for landing. They are the same people you are getting advice from. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... afety-risk

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
The ACA dispatch and crew knew what they were facing when arriving into Mumbai.


I looked at the historical TAFs for the time, there was no Wx forecast for the SpiceJet aircraft closing the runway.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
No one alternated to Karachi on that day. Everyone went to Bangalore or Ahmedabad.


The point was you stated which airports must be used for BOM which was not correct. Our flight to BOM at the time diverted to MAA.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
Apon asking pilots who are based in Pune they said no widebody can land into Pune. I think theoretically it can, but obstructions, taxiway signs, length width etc etc might be the problem.


The runway dimensions of 10/28 at PNQ are identical to 07/25 at YSSY that can land A380/747s. More than enough room to shutdown and park on P2 or P at PNQ. PNQ gets visits from military strategic transport aircraft.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
So as said above and in my previous comments, only in serious conditions a passenger aircraft is allowed to land at a military base.


An excess of air and significant absence of fuel is considered a significant condition hence the declaration of Mayday fuel.


Pilots lying about fuel emergencies just to get priority in traffic is an old-school trick.
I know a pilot in the middle east who talked to me about its misuse there too.
You maybe right, but im just talking because of the things I saw and because of the things I was told.
Even BAW diverted to MAA that day because ATC denied them entry into HYD. I dont know why they didnt go to BLR

2 days later it came back and we had the pleasure of seeing a BAW 789 in daylight
Copyright Tyrone D'Souza
Image

and I definitely had fun spotting when late heavies landed on 14 otherwise we only see them in night.
P.s dont judge my pics...
Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

But who am I to judge, I love getting taught new things everyday.
definitely had fun debating with you.

Regards.
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:34 am

@Varun

I hope you understanding that no one is blaming you, as you appear to be the only person close to the action, just curious to learn more information to fit the puzzle.

Had it been legal to publish ATC recordings in India, there is no need to debate for this long.

Also, keep in mind most a.net pundits are not looking for facts, they just want to prove Indian ATC is incompetent, and many Indians are there to help them. So just ignore those posts. Avherald is unbiased with the exception of when one country is involved.

Also, it may be that AC46 declared MAYDAY FUEL at every handoff, Mumbai Approach to Mumbai Center ... Hyderabad Approach. So four MAYDAY calls are not out of the norm.

PNQ is just a hypothesis based on your statement of MAYDAY FUEL declaration to Mumbai Approach.

Every other crew knew their drill, acted very professionally knowing the gravity of the situation except one. This includes foreign carriers like Swiss, Malaysian, Lufthansa and Cathay. CX663 even appears to have diverted last minute to accommodate AC46.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP_Sgclu-84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oSYbF3FBcU
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5861
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:45 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
@Varun

I hope you understanding that no one is blaming you, as you appear to be the only person close to the action, just curious to learn more information to fit the puzzle.

Had it been legal to publish ATC recordings in India, there is no need to debate for this long.

Also, keep in mind most a.net pundits are not looking for facts, they just want to prove Indian ATC is incompetent, and many Indians are there to help them. So just ignore those posts. Avherald is unbiased with the exception of when one country is involved.

Also, it may be that AC46 declared MAYDAY FUEL at every handoff, Mumbai Approach to Mumbai Center ... Hyderabad Approach. So four MAYDAY calls are not out of the norm.

PNQ is just a hypothesis based on your statement of MAYDAY FUEL declaration to Mumbai Approach.

Every other crew knew their drill, acted very professionally knowing the gravity of the situation except one. This includes foreign carriers like Swiss, Malaysian, Lufthansa and Cathay. CX663 even appears to have diverted last minute to accommodate AC46.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP_Sgclu-84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oSYbF3FBcU


The person not accepting facts is you. The story was that AC46 declared MAYDAY FUEL on the way to HYD as ATC wanted to put them on hold. AC46 had to repeat MAYDAY FUEL 3 times before ACT gave them the clearance to land. Yes AC46 did not go on hold, but ATC tried to put them on hold.
Not one of your arguments has been to this topic. You are trying in a confusing babble to muddy the waters.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:57 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The person not accepting facts is you. The story was that AC46 declared MAYDAY FUEL on the way to HYD as ATC wanted to put them on hold. AC46 had to repeat MAYDAY FUEL 3 times before ACT gave them the clearance to land. Yes AC46 did not go on hold, but ATC tried to put them on hold.
Not one of your arguments has been to this topic. You are trying in a confusing babble to muddy the waters.


First, watch both videos posted.

ATC has the bigger picture, there are multiple valid reasons why ATC was suggesting different airport. Fatigued AC46 crew and OCC on lunch break appears to be clueless.

This happened 20 days back if it was Indian ATC's fault TSB will be all over them.

Because of the good karma of passengers got a second lease on life.

I didn't even blame the AC crew who lined up SFO taxiway, they made a mistake but they were aware
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:29 pm

"Every other crew knew their drill, acted very professionally knowing the gravity of the situation except one"
That's it sorted then. Off with their heads !

Memo to self;
stop feeding the troll !
stop feeding the troll !
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL !
I was going to add a witty sign-off, but all the best ones have already been taken.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11322
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:28 pm

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
Pilots lying about fuel emergencies just to get priority in traffic is an old-school trick.
I know a pilot in the middle east who talked to me about its misuse there too.
You maybe right, but im just talking because of the things I saw and because of the things I was told.


I don’t have time for that, nor do I have time for the pilots that forge their experience.

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
and I definitely had fun spotting when late heavies landed on 14 otherwise we only see them in night.


I have never operated off 14/32 or been to BOM during the day, mainly 27 at night. Only have used 14/32 as a taxiway. I hope one day they build a runway north and parallel to the current 09/27 over the motorway and train line into Juhu airport. It would have a lot of benefit if in the future they had a northern 09/27 that allowed arrivals from over the water and departures off the current 27. Its called Simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations, or SODPROPS.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5861
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:33 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The person not accepting facts is you. The story was that AC46 declared MAYDAY FUEL on the way to HYD as ATC wanted to put them on hold. AC46 had to repeat MAYDAY FUEL 3 times before ACT gave them the clearance to land. Yes AC46 did not go on hold, but ATC tried to put them on hold.
Not one of your arguments has been to this topic. You are trying in a confusing babble to muddy the waters.


First, watch both videos posted.

ATC has the bigger picture, there are multiple valid reasons why ATC was suggesting different airport. Fatigued AC46 crew and OCC on lunch break appears to be clueless.

This happened 20 days back if it was Indian ATC's fault TSB will be all over them.

Because of the good karma of passengers got a second lease on life.

I didn't even blame the AC crew who lined up SFO taxiway, they made a mistake but they were aware


Stop muddying the waters. It does not matter if AC46 went on hold on the way to HYD. I do not have to watch any movies, they do not provide any facts in regards to the question: DID HYD ATC ASK AC46 TO HOLD AFTER AC46 DECLARED MAYDAY FUEL, and did AC46 had to repeat MAYDAY FUEL and refuse to go on hold before they got the clearance from HYD. That is the only relevant question in this thread and you are trying to point away from that.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4781
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:50 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
DID HYD ATC ASK AC46 TO HOLD AFTER AC46 DECLARED MAYDAY FUEL, and did AC46 had to repeat MAYDAY FUEL and refuse to go on hold before they got the clearance from HYD.

You seem to have all the FACTS, you should present those. I am just going by publicly available evidence.

mjoelnir wrote:
That is the only relevant question in this thread and you are trying to point away from that.

Because all the publicly available evidence suggests otherwise. AC46 got straight approach to HYD 9L. Even with all the mad run on Hyderabad, they accommodated AC46.

BTW, What is the punishment for declaring false MAYDAY FUEL?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:59 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The person not accepting facts is you. The story was that AC46 declared MAYDAY FUEL on the way to HYD as ATC wanted to put them on hold. AC46 had to repeat MAYDAY FUEL 3 times before ACT gave them the clearance to land. Yes AC46 did not go on hold, but ATC tried to put them on hold.
Not one of your arguments has been to this topic. You are trying in a confusing babble to muddy the waters.


First, watch both videos posted.

ATC has the bigger picture, there are multiple valid reasons why ATC was suggesting different airport. Fatigued AC46 crew and OCC on lunch break appears to be clueless.

This happened 20 days back if it was Indian ATC's fault TSB will be all over them.

Because of the good karma of passengers got a second lease on life.

I didn't even blame the AC crew who lined up SFO taxiway, they made a mistake but they were aware


Stop muddying the waters. It does not matter if AC46 went on hold on the way to HYD. I do not have to watch any movies, they do not provide any facts in regards to the question: DID HYD ATC ASK AC46 TO HOLD AFTER AC46 DECLARED MAYDAY FUEL, and did AC46 had to repeat MAYDAY FUEL and refuse to go on hold before they got the clearance from HYD. That is the only relevant question in this thread and you are trying to point away from that.


Don't feed the troll my friend. You will never win. I think we all have over analyzed the situation. Transport Canada and Air Canada will be the ones I trust for this investigation. They will have the ATC tapes plus the cockpit voice recorder, flight plan, coordination between the crews and dispatcher, and accurate fuel loads, so they'll probably have the most information for what happened and investigate accordingly without sensationalism.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4473
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:30 pm

zeke wrote:

Thule is used as an emergency diversion airport, but not to my knowledge as a planned ETOPS alternate. Diversions into military airports are not that uncommon, just look at the Air France A380 recent diversion to Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay. One of our 777s had an emergency diversion to Eareckson Air Station in Shemya a few years ago. There is now a formal agreement in place now for Hindon AFS to be used as an alternate for IGI.




Okay, so now I can figure out who you fly for. :) I'm familiar with the Shemya incident. I've been involved with some issues associated with it. I'll keep my editorial comments to myself about how it was handled by the Flight Attendants, which was posted on YouTube.

In any event, this has been an interesting discussion, but I think it has run its course.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5861
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Air Canada 787-9 vs. ATC: Clearance to land only after fourth (!) mayday call

Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:27 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
DID HYD ATC ASK AC46 TO HOLD AFTER AC46 DECLARED MAYDAY FUEL, and did AC46 had to repeat MAYDAY FUEL and refuse to go on hold before they got the clearance from HYD.

You seem to have all the FACTS, you should present those. I am just going by publicly available evidence.

mjoelnir wrote:
That is the only relevant question in this thread and you are trying to point away from that.

Because all the publicly available evidence suggests otherwise. AC46 got straight approach to HYD 9L. Even with all the mad run on Hyderabad, they accommodated AC46.

BTW, What is the punishment for declaring false MAYDAY FUEL?


My source is the AV Herald. You can read up on it in the first post in this thread if you have missed it. It is what this thread is all about.

You have not brought one single fact to the discussion, but you are trying to muddying the waters.

In regards for declaring false MAYDAY FUEL and what the punishment is for that, you have to ask your colleagues or friends in India, there it seems to be practiced.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos