dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
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 3:50 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
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.


This sensational news started by avherald based on TSB report A17F0230. This may be based on an ASR crew filed. It is no longer available anywhere on TSB site.

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-i ... /index.asp

Like all aviation sites, avherald has a convenient self-serving rule.to remove MAYDAY FUEL incidents if the plane lands above final reserve. I am guessing, they are waiting for the news subside and change it from I-Incident to N-News (or) delete.

DGCA/AAIB would have access to CVR and fuel levels well before TSB.

So let's hope TSB and ACA do a proper investigation and nothing is swept under the rug.
 
maxudaskin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:33 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:39 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
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.


This sensational news started by avherald based on TSB report A17F0230. This may be based on an ASR crew filed. It is no longer available anywhere on TSB site.

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-i ... /index.asp

Like all aviation sites, avherald has a convenient self-serving rule.to remove MAYDAY FUEL incidents if the plane lands above final reserve. I am guessing, they are waiting for the news subside and change it from I-Incident to N-News (or) delete.

DGCA/AAIB would have access to CVR and fuel levels well before TSB.

So let's hope TSB and ACA do a proper investigation and nothing is swept under the rug.


Image

"Ongoing Aviation Investigations"

If it's not there, I am willing to assume that the investigation is no longer ongoing.
 
2Holer4Longhaul
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:03 am

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:54 am

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?

mjoelnir asked the relevant question, "Did ATC ask AC46 to hold after AC46 declared mayday fuel?"
This is the only relevant question here. Unless you can get a fact-based answer to that question, you can't acquit Indian ACT, convict Air Canada, or anything of the sort. Your beating around the bush to distract from the baselessness in you making these allegations nonetheless is the reason the rest of this forum doesn't take you seriously
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.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:08 am

maxudaskin wrote:
"Ongoing Aviation Investigations"

If it's not there, I am willing to assume that the investigation is no longer ongoing.


As the State of Occurrence is India, if there is an investigation it is carried by Indian TSB and Canada TSB would be assisting in the role of the State of the Operator.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:45 am

Finn350 wrote:
maxudaskin wrote:
"Ongoing Aviation Investigations"

If it's not there, I am willing to assume that the investigation is no longer ongoing.


As the State of Occurrence is India, if there is an investigation it is carried by Indian TSB and Canada TSB would be assisting in the role of the State of the Operator.


Sure, if these were Indian pilots DGCA would have suspended their licenses immediately pending investigation. Calling out false MAYDAY FUEL that also FOUR TIMES is a career-ending action.

In layman terms, MAYDAY FUEL is, we the crew did the fuel math to our committed airport ie., HYD, we will be landing below final reserve.

But ICAO has enough loophole for airlines and regulators who want to sweep these under the rug. A crew may or may not file an ASR after an emergency. It is up to the crew and their chief pilot.

It is easy to blame others. Repeating words "fact", "incompetence" or name calling doesn't change the reality.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:58 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Calling out false MAYDAY FUEL that also FOUR TIMES is a career-ending action.

Proof. Please provide proof, or stop asserting this claim.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:27 am

atcsundevil wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Calling out false MAYDAY FUEL that also FOUR TIMES is a career-ending action.

Proof. Please provide proof, or stop asserting this claim.


You didn't say that to zeke. Stop bias. Thay landed above final reserve.

Why did TSB delete the report???
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:58 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Calling out false MAYDAY FUEL that also FOUR TIMES is a career-ending action.

Proof. Please provide proof, or stop asserting this claim.


You didn't say that to zeke. Stop bias. Thay landed above final reserve.

Why did TSB delete the report???

What was Zeke so adamant about without proof? I didn't see anything. It's not me being biased, it's me being skeptical based on incomplete information. Please provide a source for your claim that they landed above reserve fuel.

By the way, as a controller, you would think I would be in defense of ATC, so your claim that I'm biased isn't really holding water.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:12 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
What was Zeke so adamant about without proof? I didn't see anything. It's not me being biased, it's me being skeptical based on incomplete information. Please provide a source for your claim that they landed above reserve fuel..


Zeke made an exact same assertion, that they landed above final reserve. How is my assertion different?

ADS-B data doesn't lie, AC46 got straight approach with priority over everyone else.
Why wouldn't TSB investigate if Indian ATC put 200 lives in danger?

You jumped on AI126's totally ignorant statement not knowing how modern Indian ATC and wrote a passage where you asserted Indian ATC panicked, without proof.

atcsundevil wrote:
By the way, as a controller, you would think I would be in defense of ATC, so your claim that I'm biased isn't really holding water.

No comments.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:22 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Zeke made an exact same assertion, that they landed above final reserve. How is my assertion different?

ADS-B data doesn't lie, AC46 got straight approach with priority over everyone else.
Why wouldn't TSB investigate if Indian ATC put 200 lives in danger?

You jumped on AI126's totally ignorant statement not knowing how modern Indian ATC and wrote a passage where you asserted Indian ATC panicked, without proof.

Please don't quote me out of context. This is what I said:
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.

This is not an assertion that Indian ATC panicked. This is a blanket statement regarding emergencies, and one that is very accurate when handling an aircraft declaring an emergency.

I must have missed where Zeke said that, but if you're going to continue this claim under the apparent pretext that ATC are absolved from the situation, then you aren't looking at this from an unbiased viewpoint. It is not, I'll say again, not ATC's job to determine whether or not an aircraft is truly in distress. Therefore, ignoring the declaration multiple times is unacceptable. Full stop. We know that happened, because otherwise there wouldn't be a story here. If the aircraft was deemed by investigators not to have truly been in fuel emergency after the fact, then that's fine — I would just like to see this from an official source and not someone making bold claims with no evidence. I'm not saying the crew aren't potentially at fault, but I've seen actual evidence of improper handling by ATC, and no evidence that the crew improperly declared an emergency.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:48 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
... but if you're going to continue this claim under the apparent pretext that ATC are absolved from the situation, then you aren't looking at this from an unbiased viewpoint. ....


No, I haven't said ATC is absolved, I said it is crew's fault based on information available.
I am not agreeing with a.net's preferred conclusion without any analysis that it is totally ATC's fault. That doesn't make me a troll.

atcsundevil wrote:
but I've seen actual evidence of improper handling by ATC.

BTW, where is this evidence, can you point to it.
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:54 pm

zeke wrote:
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.



Next time you come, we shall meet over a coffee and discuss now that we have a topic! :lol:

And to other people chill out guys no ones a troll everyone has experience :white:
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:43 pm

Declaring emergency for fuel (MAYDAY FUEL) and landing above final reserve fuel are not mutually exclusive. The very reason to declare fuel emergency is to get priority landing to avoid consuming final reserve fuel. It appears that the aircraft did eventually get priority and was not put on hold and thus avoided consuming final reserve fuel, as intended by declaring the emergency.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:04 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
but I've seen actual evidence of improper handling by ATC.

BTW, where is this evidence, can you point to it.

As a matter of fact, I can...

http://avherald.com/h?article=4af4dc97&opt=0
The flight crew declared Mayday due to being low on fuel, however, ATC instructed them to enter a hold and tried to divert them several times before giving them a direct route to Hyderabad following the fourth (!) Mayday declaration.

The Canadian TSB reported: "The operator reported that ATC continued trying to divert the flight or attempted to place it in another hold. The flight crew had to declare MAYDAY four times before ATC cleared them for the approach into VOHS.


https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news ... I_amp.html
On approach, the aircraft was placed in a holding pattern by Indian air traffic authorities due to an unrelated airport ground incident, but the Indian controllers did not provide details to enable the crew to make an assessment on diverting to an alternative airport


https://m.timesofindia.com/india/air-ca ... 986474.cms
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature. ... id=2029227
https://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2017/ ... light.html
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:12 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
but I've seen actual evidence of improper handling by ATC.

BTW, where is this evidence, can you point to it.

As a matter of fact, I can...

http://avherald.com/h?article=4af4dc97&opt=0
The flight crew declared Mayday due to being low on fuel, however, ATC instructed them to enter a hold and tried to divert them several times before giving them a direct route to Hyderabad following the fourth (!) Mayday declaration.

The Canadian TSB reported: "The operator reported that ATC continued trying to divert the flight or attempted to place it in another hold. The flight crew had to declare MAYDAY four times before ATC cleared them for the approach into VOHS.


https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news ... I_amp.html
On approach, the aircraft was placed in a holding pattern by Indian air traffic authorities due to an unrelated airport ground incident, but the Indian controllers did not provide details to enable the crew to make an assessment on diverting to an alternative airport


https://m.timesofindia.com/india/air-ca ... 986474.cms
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature. ... id=2029227
https://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2017/ ... light.html


Never mind. Your definition of evidence is certainly different than mine.

100 outlets repeating same disappeared report doesn't constitute evidence.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:21 pm

Finn350 wrote:
Declaring emergency for fuel (MAYDAY FUEL) and landing above final reserve fuel are not mutually exclusive. The very reason to declare fuel emergency is to get priority landing to avoid consuming final reserve fuel. It appears that the aircraft did eventually get priority and was not put on hold and thus avoided consuming final reserve fuel, as intended by declaring the emergency.


No. Here are the ICAO definition and a document explaining it.

4.3.7.2.3 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.

http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/ ... 20fuel.pdf

For a MAYDAY FUEL to be legit

1) The crew calculation should show useable fuel will be less than reserve fuel upon landing.
2) It has to be the nearest aerodrome. Like zeke explained BOM and PNQ are the nearest aerodromes, not HYD.

Keep in mind, TG351 declared a legit MAYDAY FUEL and landed at BOM.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:26 pm

Finn350 wrote:
Declaring emergency for fuel (MAYDAY FUEL) and landing above final reserve fuel are not mutually exclusive. The very reason to declare fuel emergency is to get priority landing to avoid consuming final reserve fuel. It appears that the aircraft did eventually get priority and was not put on hold and thus avoided consuming final reserve fuel, as intended by declaring the emergency.


One cannot declare mayday fuel when there are closer suitable airports (BOM, PNQ, AMD, GOI) where they can land above final reserve. The sequence of events I understand to have occurred is a mayday was declared when holding just east of BOM. The closest suitable then is BOM. If they did land at HYD above final reserve, it means they declared a mayday with around 100 minutes of endurance. The AC spokesperson after the event just mentioned there were fuel constrains.

Per ICAO “Declare a fuel emergency when the calculated fuel on landing at the nearest suitable aerodrome, where a safe landing can be made, will be less than the planned final reserve fuel”

http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/ ... 20fuel.pdf

TG declared mayday fuel and landed at BOM.

It sounds to me the crew does not know what the terminology means, eating into your planned alternate fuel is not grounds for a mayday, or even minimum fuel. Those are terms which are used when you are out of options.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:28 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
BTW, where is this evidence, can you point to it.

As a matter of fact, I can...

http://avherald.com/h?article=4af4dc97&opt=0
The flight crew declared Mayday due to being low on fuel, however, ATC instructed them to enter a hold and tried to divert them several times before giving them a direct route to Hyderabad following the fourth (!) Mayday declaration.

The Canadian TSB reported: "The operator reported that ATC continued trying to divert the flight or attempted to place it in another hold. The flight crew had to declare MAYDAY four times before ATC cleared them for the approach into VOHS.


https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news ... I_amp.html
On approach, the aircraft was placed in a holding pattern by Indian air traffic authorities due to an unrelated airport ground incident, but the Indian controllers did not provide details to enable the crew to make an assessment on diverting to an alternative airport


https://m.timesofindia.com/india/air-ca ... 986474.cms
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature. ... id=2029227
https://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2017/ ... light.html


Never mind. Your definition of evidence is certainly different than mine.

100 outlets repeating same disappeared report doesn't constitute evidence.

Every available source I have found supports the claim of potential mishandling by Indian air traffic control.

No available source I have found supports your claim that the aircraft landed with sufficient fuel not requiring an emergency declaration. I have asked twice, and you have not provided a source of any kind to establish this as anything other than a conspiracy theory.

These articles are primarily from Indian outlets, and source the Canadian TSB, Air Canada, and Indian air traffic authorities. If that's not "evidence", then apparently nothing will meet your burden of proof unless it's suits your preconceived bias.

It's worth mentioning that Indian ATC has not publicly refuted what is being reported, but said that "flights were being diverted were also choking and it was getting increasingly difficult to accommodate more and more flights." No denial that the mayday call was not acknowledged until the fourth attempt, no denial that the aircraft was asked to continue to hold following the mayday call, and no denial that the aircraft was not provided with sufficient information for decision-making.

But yeah, let's not let facts and sources get in the way of this discussion.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:30 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
Declaring emergency for fuel (MAYDAY FUEL) and landing above final reserve fuel are not mutually exclusive. The very reason to declare fuel emergency is to get priority landing to avoid consuming final reserve fuel. It appears that the aircraft did eventually get priority and was not put on hold and thus avoided consuming final reserve fuel, as intended by declaring the emergency.


No. Here are the ICAO definition and a document explaining it.

4.3.7.2.3 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.

http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/ ... 20fuel.pdf

For a MAYDAY FUEL to be legit

1) The crew calculation should show useable fuel will be less than reserve fuel upon landing.
2) It has to be the nearest aerodrome. Like zeke explained BOM and PNQ are the nearest aerodromes, not HYD.

Keep in mind, TG351 declared a legit MAYDAY FUEL and landed at BOM.


As explained by the Canada TSB bulletin, the crew declared MAYDAY when approaching HYD and they were told the airport was full and not able to accommodate the flight. In that scenario MAYDAY FUEL is fully legit.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:32 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
The flight crew declared Mayday due to being low on fuel, however, ATC instructed them to enter a hold and tried to divert them several times before giving them a direct route to Hyderabad following the fourth (!) Mayday declaration.


Mayday fuel to a controller means this pilot is out of options get the aircraft to the closest suitable airport ASAP, which was BOM because they are going to land with less than 30 minutes of fuel at BOM. It makes no sense to a controller to declare a mayday and then want to fly past closer airports and transit 60 minutes to HYD if you only have 30 minutes of fuel.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:34 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
It is not, I'll say again, not ATC's job to determine whether or not an aircraft is truly in distress. Therefore, ignoring the declaration multiple times is unacceptable. Full stop. We know that happened, because otherwise there wouldn't be a story here. If the aircraft was deemed by investigators not to have truly been in fuel emergency after the fact, then that's fine — I would just like to see this from an official source and not someone making bold claims with no evidence. I'm not saying the crew aren't potentially at fault, but I've seen actual evidence of improper handling by ATC, and no evidence that the crew improperly declared an emergency.


Thank you, that’s what I’ve been trying to say on this thread since the start. When a person hears a startling noise and calls 9-1-1, does the dispatcher say “let me figure out if there’s actually a burglar before sending the police?” no they don’t. I’m a bit tired of how dtw2hyd keeps trying to take this thread down a road it really shouldn’t be. My advice, go start another one and title it “AC & CTSB are Covering Up Things Again” or “Air Canada Screws Up Again”.

As for the evidence claims by dtw2hyd, he keeps whining “look at the evidence”. Honestly though what evidence? He doesn’t bring anything forward. It reminds me of a argumentative whiny kid I met once that claimed Alitalia was the financial dream of the airline industry and when I challenged him he said his “teacher knew that” and to “look at the textbooks” to see the evidence to support his claims.

My suggestion if one can’t continue to discuss the fact that mayday calls were ignored regardless of the nature of the emergency , then give up and leave. Ask any controller (apart from the ones in India apparently) they do not decipher what is and isn’t an emergency. If that last sentence is unacceptable then I’m sorry you live in an alternate reality.
Last edited by CFM565A1 on Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:34 pm

Finn350 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
Declaring emergency for fuel (MAYDAY FUEL) and landing above final reserve fuel are not mutually exclusive. The very reason to declare fuel emergency is to get priority landing to avoid consuming final reserve fuel. It appears that the aircraft did eventually get priority and was not put on hold and thus avoided consuming final reserve fuel, as intended by declaring the emergency.


No. Here are the ICAO definition and a document explaining it.

4.3.7.2.3 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.

http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/ ... 20fuel.pdf

For a MAYDAY FUEL to be legit

1) The crew calculation should show useable fuel will be less than reserve fuel upon landing.
2) It has to be the nearest aerodrome. Like zeke explained BOM and PNQ are the nearest aerodromes, not HYD.

Keep in mind, TG351 declared a legit MAYDAY FUEL and landed at BOM.


As explained by the Canada TSB bulletin, the crew declared MAYDAY when approaching HYD and they were told the airport was full and not able to accommodate the flight. In that scenario MAYDAY FUEL is fully legit.

Correct. The aircraft was in holding at BOM. They requested diversion to HYD. They were told they would be placed into holding again at HYD. They then declared mayday fuel, with HYD as the closest, most appropriate field.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:35 pm

Finn350 wrote:
As explained by the Canada TSB bulletin, the crew declared MAYDAY when approaching HYD and they were told the airport was full and not able to accommodate the flight. In that scenario MAYDAY FUEL is fully legit.


Got a link to that ?

The reason I am asking is they also declared mayday while holding east of BOM before going to HYD.

I should add, please be aware the media would not know the difference between a report submitted to the TSB by a pilot, operator, or ATC and a report published after the TSB completed its investigation. The is not a hope in the world the TSB has done an investigation and published a report in 48 hrs.
Last edited by zeke on Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:43 pm

Finn350 wrote:
As explained by the Canada TSB bulletin, the crew declared MAYDAY when approaching HYD and they were told the airport was full and not able to accommodate the flight. In that scenario MAYDAY FUEL is fully legit.


Per ADS-B data
17:38 UTC it climbed to FL250 on direct to HYD.
18:05 UTC it started its descent into straight approach HYD.
18:34 UTC it landed at HYD.

Can you fit four MAYDAY FUEL calls, holding patterns, into all this? Take a guess.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:59 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
and source the Canadian TSB, Air Canada.


Had the TSB kept the investigation active or completed, I wouldn't argue. The issue is it retracted the bulletin.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:01 pm

zeke wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
As explained by the Canada TSB bulletin, the crew declared MAYDAY when approaching HYD and they were told the airport was full and not able to accommodate the flight. In that scenario MAYDAY FUEL is fully legit.


Got a link to that ?

The reason I am asking is they also declared mayday while holding east of BOM before going to HYD.

I should add, please be aware the media would not know the difference between a report submitted to the TSB by a pilot, operator, or ATC and a report published after the TSB completed its investigation. The is not a hope in the world the TSB has done an investigation and published a report in 48 hrs.


I am paraphrasing the quotes of the bulletin earlier quoted in this thread.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:01 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
They then declared mayday fuel, with HYD as the closest, most appropriate field.


Looks like someone is deleting my posts.

HYD was not the closest by some margin.

Image

Go back earlier in this thread where EK declared mayday fuel into YVR, the Canadian controllers offered them twice two closer suitable airports which they rejected. This creates confusion with ATC, your either in a state of emergency and need to land at the nearest suitable, or your not.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:04 pm

Finn350 wrote:
I am paraphrasing the quotes of the bulletin earlier quoted in this thread.


And all that is listing a report (pilot, operator, ATC) received, not the result of an investigation, ie investgation report.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:08 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
As explained by the Canada TSB bulletin, the crew declared MAYDAY when approaching HYD and they were told the airport was full and not able to accommodate the flight. In that scenario MAYDAY FUEL is fully legit.


Per ADS-B data
17:38 UTC it climbed to FL250 on direct to HYD.
18:05 UTC it started its descent into straight approach HYD.
18:34 UTC it landed at HYD.

Can you fit four MAYDAY FUEL calls, holding patterns, into all this? Take a guess.

Where on earth are you getting the idea that we are saying they did a hold on the way to HYD? All others are sayin is that they were TOLD to and REFUSED to do it, very different than actually doing it so of course you don’t see a hold on your flightaware replay because it never happened. I think your illogcal bias is making you read what we are saying wrong.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:25 pm

767333ER wrote:
Where on earth are you getting the idea that we are saying they did a hold on the way to HYD? All others are sayin is that they were TOLD to and REFUSED to do it, very different than actually doing it so of course you don’t see a hold on your flightaware replay because it never happened. I think your illogcal bias is making you read what we are saying wrong.


I understand they were actually first asked to continue holding east of BOM, my guess is that was to facilitate their landing into BOM (which is what Thai did). They then insisted to go to HYD.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Mir
Posts: 19395
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:43 pm

zeke wrote:
767333ER wrote:
Where on earth are you getting the idea that we are saying they did a hold on the way to HYD? All others are sayin is that they were TOLD to and REFUSED to do it, very different than actually doing it so of course you don’t see a hold on your flightaware replay because it never happened. I think your illogcal bias is making you read what we are saying wrong.


I understand they were actually first asked to continue holding east of BOM, my guess is that was to facilitate their landing into BOM (which is what Thai did). They then insisted to go to HYD.


As it was reported, they tried to go to their planned alternate first after holding for BOM to reopen, but their planned alternate was unable to accept them. Only then did they decide to go to HYD, and only when HYD refused to accept them did they declare their fuel emergency and insisted on landing there without holding.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:51 pm

Mir wrote:
As it was reported, they tried to go to their planned alternate first after holding for BOM to reopen, but their planned alternate was unable to accept them. Only then did they decide to go to HYD, and only when HYD refused to accept them did they declare their fuel emergency and insisted on landing there without holding.


The planned altn (AMD) had run out of parking space, which should be of no surprise to anyone (look at the date on this)

A1410/17 NOTAMR A1379/17
Q) VABF/QXXXX/IV/BO/A/000/999/
A) VAAH B) 1708210401 C) 1711182359 EST
E) DUE TO SHORTAGE OF PARKING STANDS
1) ALL NON SKED ACFT FOR CODE-A AND CODE-B INTENDING TO PARK FOR MORE THAN TWELVE HR AT AHMEDABAD AIRPORT MUST OBTAIN PRIOR APV.
2) ALL NON SKED AIRCRAFTS FOR CODE-C, CODE-D AND CODE-E INTENDING TO OPERATE AT AHMEDABAD AIRPORT MUST OBTAIN PRIOR APV.

But it is false to say to would not accept them to land, just like they could have landed at BOM if they had a genuine emergency (like Thai did).
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
IADCA
Posts: 1478
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:55 pm

767333ER wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
As explained by the Canada TSB bulletin, the crew declared MAYDAY when approaching HYD and they were told the airport was full and not able to accommodate the flight. In that scenario MAYDAY FUEL is fully legit.


Per ADS-B data
17:38 UTC it climbed to FL250 on direct to HYD.
18:05 UTC it started its descent into straight approach HYD.
18:34 UTC it landed at HYD.

Can you fit four MAYDAY FUEL calls, holding patterns, into all this? Take a guess.

Where on earth are you getting the idea that we are saying they did a hold on the way to HYD? All others are sayin is that they were TOLD to and REFUSED to do it, very different than actually doing it so of course you don’t see a hold on your flightaware replay because it never happened. I think your illogcal bias is making you read what we are saying wrong.


As he usually does, he is ignoring all logic, facts, and expertise that does not agree with his desired (and entirely predictable given his posting history) conclusions. There's no point in attempting to argue with someone who has determined his conclusion before looking at any evidence.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:03 pm

zeke wrote:
Mir wrote:
As it was reported, they tried to go to their planned alternate first after holding for BOM to reopen, but their planned alternate was unable to accept them. Only then did they decide to go to HYD, and only when HYD refused to accept them did they declare their fuel emergency and insisted on landing there without holding.


The planned altn (AMD) had run out of parking space, which should be of no surprise to anyone (look at the date on this)

A1410/17 NOTAMR A1379/17
Q) VABF/QXXXX/IV/BO/A/000/999/
A) VAAH B) 1708210401 C) 1711182359 EST
E) DUE TO SHORTAGE OF PARKING STANDS
1) ALL NON SKED ACFT FOR CODE-A AND CODE-B INTENDING TO PARK FOR MORE THAN TWELVE HR AT AHMEDABAD AIRPORT MUST OBTAIN PRIOR APV.
2) ALL NON SKED AIRCRAFTS FOR CODE-C, CODE-D AND CODE-E INTENDING TO OPERATE AT AHMEDABAD AIRPORT MUST OBTAIN PRIOR APV.

But it is false to say to would not accept them to land, just like they could have landed at BOM if they had a genuine emergency (like Thai did).


It's a little off topic, but not really. I wonder why airports like HYD and AMD don't pave more space for remote stands. It's not like they ran out of space. There is plenty of unpaved dirt surrounding the air side of the international terminals at both airports. I don't see why they can't be like BLR which has a ton of remote parking stands. There's unpaved dirt/grass on three sides of the apron at Ahmedabad airport and yet they won't let airplanes park overnight.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:30 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
It's a little off topic, but not really. I wonder why airports like HYD and AMD don't pave more space for remote stands. It's not like they ran out of space. There is plenty of unpaved dirt surrounding the air side of the international terminals at both airports. I don't see why they can't be like BLR which has a ton of remote parking stands. There's unpaved dirt/grass on three sides of the apron at Ahmedabad airport and yet they won't let airplanes park overnight.


What they are doing is building new airports. BLR and HYD are two relatively new airports, HYD is undergoing phase 2 of their expansion plans. I heard they have commenced building another airport up towards AMD with a 3000m and 4000m runway. The old BLR didn’t have much parking space either.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:00 pm

767333ER wrote:
Where on earth are you getting the idea that we are saying they did a hold on the way to HYD? All others are sayin is that they were TOLD to and REFUSED to do it, very different than actually doing it so of course you don’t see a hold on your flightaware replay because it never happened. I think your illogcal bias is making you read what we are saying wrong.


EK 229 - Air Nav Canada tried to divert two times. EK rejected went to Vancouver. MAYDAY at every handoff. When that is a non-event, why is this a major news?

Avherald version of the story. All times UTC.
16:08 Aborted approach at BOM (ADS-B)
16:22 Entered 7000 hold over Mumbai (ADS-B)
17:01 Entered 8000 hold over Mumbai (ADS-B)
17:08 Entered 10000 hold over Mumbai (ADS-B)
- Requested AMD, ATC rejected (avherald)
- Contacted OCC, picked HYD (avherald)
- Requested HYD, ATC approved (avherald)
17:38 Left Mumbai hold, DIRECT to HYD (ADS-B)
17:56 Reached FL250 DIRECT to HYD (ADS-B)
- ATC (Mumbai or Hyderabad) told HYD cannot accept due to lack of capacity (avherald)
- Declared first MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- ATC instructed them to enter a hold (avherald)
- Declared second MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- ATC tried to divert them several times (avherald)
- Declared third MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- Declared fourth MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- ATC gave direct to HYD (avherald contradicts with ADS-B DIRECT since 17:38)
18:05 Started descent into Hyd (ADS-B)
- Got straight approach to 9L (avherald)
18:34 Landed at HYD 146 min after missed approach at BOM. (ADS-B) avherald had it wrong as 118 minutes

At no point between 17:38 and 18:34 AC46 was on hold.

Feel free to fact check.

Show me where ATC wasted time, all the delay is by crew and OCC.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:16 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
767333ER wrote:
Where on earth are you getting the idea that we are saying they did a hold on the way to HYD? All others are sayin is that they were TOLD to and REFUSED to do it, very different than actually doing it so of course you don’t see a hold on your flightaware replay because it never happened. I think your illogcal bias is making you read what we are saying wrong.


EK 229 - Air Nav Canada tried to divert two times. EK rejected went to Vancouver. MAYDAY at every handoff. When that is a non-event, why is this a major news?

Avherald version of the story. All times UTC.
16:08 Aborted approach at BOM (ADS-B)
16:22 Entered 7000 hold over Mumbai (ADS-B)
17:01 Entered 8000 hold over Mumbai (ADS-B)
17:08 Entered 10000 hold over Mumbai (ADS-B)
- Requested AMD, ATC rejected (avherald)
- Contacted OCC, picked HYD (avherald)
- Requested HYD, ATC approved (avherald)
17:38 Left Mumbai hold, DIRECT to HYD (ADS-B)
17:56 Reached FL250 DIRECT to HYD (ADS-B)
- ATC (Mumbai or Hyderabad) told HYD cannot accept due to lack of capacity (avherald)
- Declared first MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- ATC instructed them to enter a hold (avherald)
- Declared second MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- ATC tried to divert them several times (avherald)
- Declared third MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- Declared fourth MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- ATC gave direct to HYD (avherald contradicts with ADS-B DIRECT since 17:38)
18:05 Started descent into Hyd (ADS-B)
- Got straight approach to 9L (avherald)
18:34 Landed at HYD 146 min after missed approach at BOM. (ADS-B) avherald had it wrong as 118 minutes

At no point between 17:38 and 18:34 AC46 was on hold.

Feel free to fact check.

Show me where ATC wasted time, all the delay is by crew and OCC.


In my career I have never heard ATC tell an airplane to enter a hold after it declared an emergency or MAYDAY for any reason unless that is what the crew requested. I challenge anyone to find an ATC recording to prove me wrong.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:37 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
In my career I have never heard ATC tell an airplane to enter a hold after it declared an emergency or MAYDAY for any reason unless that is what the crew requested. I challenge anyone to find an ATC recording to prove me wrong.


Not sure what your question is? Based on the alleged report by avherald, first MAYDAY call would have been some time after 17:56 UTC. There was no hold.

The aircraft climbed to FL250 and was enroute to Hyderabad when ATC told them, that Hyderabad also was unable to accomodate them due to being at maximum capacity. The flight crew declared Mayday due to being low on fuel, however,
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:04 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
767333ER wrote:
Where on earth are you getting the idea that we are saying they did a hold on the way to HYD? All others are sayin is that they were TOLD to and REFUSED to do it, very different than actually doing it so of course you don’t see a hold on your flightaware replay because it never happened. I think your illogcal bias is making you read what we are saying wrong.


EK 229 - Air Nav Canada tried to divert two times. EK rejected went to Vancouver. MAYDAY at every handoff. When that is a non-event, why is this a major news?

Avherald version of the story. All times UTC.
16:08 Aborted approach at BOM (ADS-B)
16:22 Entered 7000 hold over Mumbai (ADS-B)
17:01 Entered 8000 hold over Mumbai (ADS-B)
17:08 Entered 10000 hold over Mumbai (ADS-B)
- Requested AMD, ATC rejected (avherald)
- Contacted OCC, picked HYD (avherald)
- Requested HYD, ATC approved (avherald)
17:38 Left Mumbai hold, DIRECT to HYD (ADS-B)
17:56 Reached FL250 DIRECT to HYD (ADS-B)
- ATC (Mumbai or Hyderabad) told HYD cannot accept due to lack of capacity (avherald)
- Declared first MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- ATC instructed them to enter a hold (avherald)
- Declared second MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- ATC tried to divert them several times (avherald)
- Declared third MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- Declared fourth MAYDAY FUEL (avherald)
- ATC gave direct to HYD (avherald contradicts with ADS-B DIRECT since 17:38)
18:05 Started descent into Hyd (ADS-B)
- Got straight approach to 9L (avherald)
18:34 Landed at HYD 146 min after missed approach at BOM. (ADS-B) avherald had it wrong as 118 minutes

At no point between 17:38 and 18:34 AC46 was on hold.

Feel free to fact check.

Show me where ATC wasted time, all the delay is by crew and OCC.

You obviously are having trouble reading my reply, I give up.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:14 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
In my career I have never heard ATC tell an airplane to enter a hold after it declared an emergency or MAYDAY for any reason unless that is what the crew requested. I challenge anyone to find an ATC recording to prove me wrong.


I remember a case a couple of years ago when one of the low cost carriers in the states wasn’t allowed to land at an airport because the blue angles were practicing, they only had around five minutes of fuel. Then there was that RJ85 that crashed into Medellin that had the aircraft in front also with an emergency. About 5 years ago I remember a Swiss A320 that needed a descent to 10,000 due to a pressurization problem and ATC would not let them.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4559
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:47 am

zeke wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
In my career I have never heard ATC tell an airplane to enter a hold after it declared an emergency or MAYDAY for any reason unless that is what the crew requested. I challenge anyone to find an ATC recording to prove me wrong.


I remember a case a couple of years ago when one of the low cost carriers in the states wasn’t allowed to land at an airport because the blue angles were practicing, they only had around five minutes of fuel. Then there was that RJ85 that crashed into Medellin that had the aircraft in front also with an emergency. About 5 years ago I remember a Swiss A320 that needed a descent to 10,000 due to a pressurization problem and ATC would not let them.


The G4 incident was in North Dakota, IIRC. If I also recall it wasn’t that simple. Wasn’t just like they couldn’t land. They had screwed up in the first place. Didn’t they land at a USAF base or another nearby airport?
 
BrooklyBOMgal
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:16 am

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:09 am

Zeke and others who are saying that the aircraft should or ought have landed at PNQ......VarunSolanki is right you cannot land into PNQ just like that. Its not a civilian airport....only the terminal is civilian, rest of the airport is under the control of the Indian Air Force. The Indian Air Force run airport permits an aircraft with any foreign national on board to land only if it has been pre-cleared by the IAF headquarters in Delhi as per rules. Donald Trump had first hand experience of this rule. This rule may sound stupid but please do keep in mind that we have some very friendly neighbors.
http://punemirror.indiatimes.com/pune/o ... 204861.cms
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:27 am

Read the DGCA CARs carefully I have posted the links and relevant parts earlier in the thread. Mayday fuel per the DGCA CAR land at the nearest aerodrome, not land at the nearest public aerodrome, not land at the nearest private aerodrome, and definitely does not say that landing at a military aerodrome in an emergency is prohibited.

We are not talking about filing PNQ as an alternate, a scheduled destination, or an ad-hoc charter flight which requires the aerodrome to be published in the AIP and/or has received PPR.

We are talking about an aircraft that was 40 nm NW of PNQ that declared an emergency.

The CARs do not say land at the nearest aerodrome that does not have PPR.

Now as to if they had a genuine emergency, per the DGCA definition not they did not as they had over 100 minutes of endurance when they declared a mayday. That would problhibit them declaring a mayday and diverting to PNQ.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:40 am

zeke wrote:
.......they had over 100 minutes of endurance when they declared a mayday.

Was it really "over 100 minutes endurance" . What exactly do you mean? Is this at cruising speed/cruising altitude. Is "endurance" recognised by ICAO? Or even DGCA? It is sounding dangerously like a piece of elasticated string.

p.s. I am in full agreement with you as regards Pune (PNQ) accepting ANY aircraft in an emergency, but I am not a pilot, so that might not count for much.
If at the last resort AC46 had a choice between an emergency landing in rough dirt outside the airfield perimeter, or landing on concrete inside the security fence, is there really any question?
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:11 pm

Endurance is listed on the flight plan, the method of calculation at the planning stage is not that straight forward as there are multiple enroute scenarios during a long flight that need to be addressed including all engines operative, one engine inoperative, and depressurization, and combinations thereof like all engines operative depressurization. These situations normally result in additional fuel to be added to the flight plan, which becomes extra fuel at the destination. The extra fuel then is normally calculated at the cruise rate to get the additional endurance.

At the planning stage the final reserve fuel is also listed, that is normally based upon a holding rate at 1500 ft above the alternate. When doing PNR calculations we remove the required reserve (30 or 15 minutes) from the endurance, and we call that the safe endurance.

In flight if ATC asks for your endurance they want to know how much fuel you have until the tanks are dry, it depends on the state of the aircraft (eg if your gear was stuck down after takeoff). I use the actual usable fuel onboard divided by the actual fuel flow.

I suspect the 100 minutes would be based upon the fuel quantity and whatever fuel flow they had at the time they declared mayday.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
VarunSolanki747
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:41 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:34 pm

BrooklyBOMgal wrote:
Zeke and others who are saying that the aircraft should or ought have landed at PNQ......VarunSolanki is right you cannot land into PNQ just like that. Its not a civilian airport....only the terminal is civilian, rest of the airport is under the control of the Indian Air Force. The Indian Air Force run airport permits an aircraft with any foreign national on board to land only if it has been pre-cleared by the IAF headquarters in Delhi as per rules. Donald Trump had first hand experience of this rule. This rule may sound stupid but please do keep in mind that we have some very friendly neighbors.
http://punemirror.indiatimes.com/pune/o ... 204861.cms


Well I kept saying not on my behalf but on behalf of spotters and real world pilots based in PNQ but people didnt believe -.-

But in the case of ACA46, the captain HAS the right to divert to Pune. But the reason I think he didnt divert is explained below.
Upon asking a real world 787 Senior Commander, he said even a 747 can land at PNQ but its not dependent on that. It is dependent on Tarmac Strength, fire fighting capability, taxiway width and lenth, turn radius, airport services etc. Quoting him " Unless there is a case of severe emergency (like a fire on board) the OM-C airfield manual is usually followed. Which means only major international airports are used. They probably didnt have PNQ in their ops manual."

Apparently what he said is what i've been saying since days, we can only bring the facts out and discuss/debate and not blame until the first report is out.
Planespotter / FlightSimmer / Traveller
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:22 pm

VarunSolanki747 wrote:
But in the case of ACA46, the captain HAS the right to divert to Pune. But the reason I think he didnt divert is explained below.
Upon asking a real world 787 Senior Commander, he said even a 747 can land at PNQ but its not dependent on that. It is dependent on Tarmac Strength, fire fighting capability, taxiway width and lenth, turn radius, airport services etc. Quoting him " Unless there is a case of severe emergency (like a fire on board) the OM-C airfield manual is usually followed. Which means only major international airports are used. They probably didnt have PNQ in their ops manual."

Apparently what he said is what i've been saying since days, we can only bring the facts out and discuss/debate and not blame until the first report is out.


Fuel emergencies can occur for a number of reasons (not enough fuel loaded, fuel leak, contaminated fuel, other unforeseen circumstances like airport/airspace closures), they are still emergencies nerveless. An emergency landing at PNQ would be far more desirable than a repeat of AC143.

In a real emergency (which includes low fuel) " Tarmac Strength, fire fighting capability, taxiway width and lenth, turn radius, airport services etc" do not factor, otherwise as your friend said OM-C would be followed for a non time critical diversion. We probably only have a dozen Indian airports in our OM-C but do have just about every airport with more than 6000 ft of runway is in the aircraft navigation database as that is all you need in a real emergency.

PNQ is more than capable of landing a widebody the problem is on the civil ramp I think the maximum wingspan for the gates is 36 meters. A 787 would either need to take up two gates where it would not interfere with the taxiways into the apron, or shutdown on P2 or P and the smaller aircraft (737/A320) would still be able to get access to the runway by other means. This would be temporary until crew from BOM could be transported out to ferry the aircraft back to BOM, that could take 6-8 hours given the traffic on that road.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:24 pm

zeke wrote:
... they had over 100 minutes of endurance when they declared a mayday. That would problhibit them declaring a mayday and diverting to PNQ.

I am happy to agree with the definition of "Final reserve fuel" as (for aeroplanes with turbine engines) "fuel to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 1 500 ft (450 m) above aerodrome
elevation in standard conditions."
:checkmark:
Perhaps you could suggest what kind of throttle setting would enable holding speed at 1500ft, either for AC46 at the end of a long flight, partially loaded with 177 pax , or for a vaguely equivalent aircraft that you are personally familiar with. Assuming that the undercarriage is up, and the aircraft in clean configuration, is it say half a notch more than engines at idle?

If it helps, I picked up this quote on another thread
"Engines usually idle at more than 50% N2 (and 20-30% N1), but that does not mean the core would be producing 50% power or consuming 50% of fuel"

I guess the point I am working towards, is that Final reserve fuel represents 30 minutes fuel at a low throttle setting, which is not the same as the throttle setting that you would normally use to transit to an alternate airfield. Although if it absolutely came to it, you could limp along, at 1500ft, at holding speed (whatever that is) for up to 30 minutes until you reached the alternate airfield.
Of course, that is at odds with the answers I got to my earlier question about AC46 climbing to FL250 en-route HYD, and the benefits of jets at higher altitude. Have I got it all wrong, and does maintaining a holding pattern at just 1500ft require proportionally more fuel??
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11519
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:25 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I guess the point I am working towards, is that Final reserve fuel represents 30 minutes fuel at a low throttle setting, which is not the same as the throttle setting that you would normally use to transit to an alternate airfield. Although if it absolutely came to it, you could limp along, at 1500ft, at holding speed (whatever that is) for up to 30 minutes until you reached the alternate airfield.
Of course, that is at odds with the answers I got to my earlier question about AC46 climbing to FL250 en-route HYD, and the benefits of jets at higher altitude. Have I got it all wrong, and does maintaining a holding pattern at just 1500ft require proportionally more fuel??


Using 788 data, assume a landing weight of 158.8 tonnes, holding to the east of BOM at 10,000 ft at 162.6 tonnes (landing weight + trip fuel) would have a fuel flow of around 4025 kg/hr, 100 minutes endurance at that fuel flow would equate to fuel onboard at the time of 6710 kg. Using the QRH figures for "Short trip Fuel and Time" for 350 nm with a landing weight of 158.8 tonnes gives a trip fuel of 4558 kg in 53 minutes, therefore and average fuel flow of 5160 kg/hr.

Holding at 1500 ft at 158.8 tonnes would equate to a fuel flow of 4208 kg/hr and therefore a 30 minute final reserve fuel of 2104 kg.

Leaving the hold at 162.6 tonnes, if the fuel onboard was 6710 kg, trip fuel of 4558 kg, then landing with 2150 kg, which is above final reserve. This is however more conservative as the short trip numbers assume that the aircraft starts off and returns to sea level, they were already at 10,000 ft holding, and HYD is 2000 ft above sea level.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
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 15, 2017 12:44 am

zeke wrote:
Using 788 data, assume a landing weight of 158.8 tonnes,...... .

Wow, amazing stuff, just what I needed. In fact so much data, my feeble brain cannot process it all tonight. I will take some time to view it & see where it takes me, and then get back to you.
Thanks Zeke. :checkmark:
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?

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