Just wondering, as I have not seen it mentioned, I wonder if there was actually a fuel leak of sorts. When UA is on the ground, the very patient QF guys that were following him (QF829) in is told it will be a few more minutes by the controller, due to a runway sweep because of a suspected fuel leak.

I am not aware of this being SOP, so what prompted ATC to initiate this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvtnA6q0dBI

OceanATC wrote:

You're confusing YMML airport with the YMMM FIR. Any relavent SIGMET's affecting the Sydney TCU will be attached to the Sydney ATIS and will be a YMMM FIR issued SIGMET, given that the sydney TCU is part of the YMMM FIR. i.e YMMM SIGMET P04 in this case. Nothing to do with YMML airport.

That makes a lot of sense

Their inbound track with 30 minute range rings to BNE, OOL, NTL, SYD

qf789 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

article mentioned the plane, a Boeing 787-900, only had 180 passengers on board. A rather light load don't you think?

Firstly there is no such thing as a 787-900, its a 787-9 secondly the latest reports suggest that there were 239 passengers on board.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... d9a1c947ac

Also let me make it quite clear if you are coming on this thread to turn it into your usual DL nonsense, think again, take it elsewhere preferably where no one else has to read it

In technical nomenclature it is a 787-922, you will find, both leasing contracts and insurance certificates are also drawn up in this fashion. As everyone more or less uses the same (re)insurers, I would expect this is industry practise in those fields. But I do of course appreciate this is not a widely used terminology. For these very purposes, Lufthansa operates 747-830´s, not 747-8´s. However, I guess that is a subject for another thread.

zeke wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Okay I haven't commented on this thread because I was waiting to read the internal report to see if it matches up with what the media has been reporting and it doesn't.
Do to the fact that an emergency was declared the flight crew was interviewed and they also had to write a report which is on file with United. According to the captain their fuel burn was higher than expected do to a constant headwind that was higher than expected. Then do to traffic ATC instead of clearing them to the airport gave them holding instructions which according to the report they accepted, however when the holding instructions were extended the flight crew advised ATC they could not accept and declared a fuel emergency for minimum fuel.
At no point in the internal report does it mention the captain saying May Day. I'm not sure where the truth is at but there were 4 crew members on the flight deck during the last final moments of the flight and no one in their report mentions the captain at any time calling out a May Day. I will leave it up to a.netter to discuss who is telling the truth the pilots or ATC because I honestly don't know.

On first contact with SYD approach, ATC said they copied their mayday, and they read back copied mayday.

What is your international command experience level?

Again you weren’t there. You don’t know UA ops specs. There was a good report from someone inside WHQ that discussed what the crew reported.

Your level of emotion in discussing this concerns me if you are in any way involved in working on the business side of a cockpit door. If you aren’t involved in that side of airline ops what is it that you do that has made you an expert on what took place in that cockpit? I’m intrigued to know what expertise you have on this matter.

You can draw rings on a map my friend. But you don’t know the fuel state. What happened when Avianca didn’t do the prudent thing and declare a mayday? What would be your comments had UA exhausted all their fuel by not stating they were in a fuel critical situation? A suspect your Monday morning quarterbacking would be a keystroke cyclone

mcdu wrote:

zeke wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Okay I haven't commented on this thread because I was waiting to read the internal report to see if it matches up with what the media has been reporting and it doesn't.
Do to the fact that an emergency was declared the flight crew was interviewed and they also had to write a report which is on file with United. According to the captain their fuel burn was higher than expected do to a constant headwind that was higher than expected. Then do to traffic ATC instead of clearing them to the airport gave them holding instructions which according to the report they accepted, however when the holding instructions were extended the flight crew advised ATC they could not accept and declared a fuel emergency for minimum fuel.
At no point in the internal report does it mention the captain saying May Day. I'm not sure where the truth is at but there were 4 crew members on the flight deck during the last final moments of the flight and no one in their report mentions the captain at any time calling out a May Day. I will leave it up to a.netter to discuss who is telling the truth the pilots or ATC because I honestly don't know.

On first contact with SYD approach, ATC said they copied their mayday, and they read back copied mayday.

What is your international command experience level?

Again you weren’t there. You don’t know UA ops specs. There was a good report from someone inside WHQ that discussed what the crew reported.

Your level of emotion in discussing this concerns me if you are in any way involved in working on the business side of a cockpit door. If you aren’t involved in that side of airline ops what is it that you do that has made you an expert on what took place in that cockpit? I’m intrigued to know what expertise you have on this matter.

You can draw rings on a map my friend. But you don’t know the fuel state. What happened when Avianca didn’t do the prudent thing and declare a mayday? What would be your comments had UA exhausted all their fuel by not stating they were in a fuel critical situation? A suspect your Monday morning quarterbacking would be a keystroke cyclone

@ Jayunited, can you please share with us the internal report you read? I've said it before and I will say it again, I am very leary of individuals who make posts stating they read something yet there is no verifiable proof that such document or wording on the document, exists. If you cant provide a link, then maybe a screen shot or a pic via your cell phone would work just as well.

Another thing, not sure if it was mentioned. I did read most posts but with 30 min reserve fuel, what would happen if, for whatever reason, the pilot had to initiate a go-around/missed approach (not sure what the right word to use is) right before landing? Would there have been enough fuel to execute a successful go-around?

zeke wrote:

Their track from the NE into SYD via MISLY IFFEY RIKNI and MARLN brings them within 30 minutes of BNE and 15 minutes of NTL.

What sort of crew goes past perfectly suitable airports where a landing can be made with final fuel intact to proceed to their destination in an emergency?

How about . . . a crew that is given a holding clearance after passing those airports?

zeke wrote:

It is also interesting to see according to another posted that the internal UA report did not say a mayday was declared. Why leave that out of the report ?

It wasn’t listed specifically in the report because it is obvious. The whole reason they had to even file the report is because of the MAYDAY call in the first place. The report is a required report that explains the MAYDAY. If it were a crash or incident report by NTSB or any other authority, then yes, it would have mentioned “MAYDAY call was made at xxxx”. This was just an internal report required anytime a MAYDAY was declared. So it is not there to document the MAYDAY. It is there to explain the MAYDAY.

Also.... As you should know, these decisions are not taken lightly. There were literally 4 extremely qualified pilots (Considering the seniority of the 787, some of the most qualified pilots at the company) on board, not to mention a senior dispatcher (newbies don't work the international desk). The crew and dispatcher were more than likely in contact throughout the whole ordeal and made a collective decisions together. Your assumptions assume that all 5 of these experienced professionals blatantly disregarded safety and common sense. Again, I'll say it again. You were not there. Your info is based off of sensationalized news reporting.

jumbojet wrote:

mcdu wrote:

zeke wrote:

On first contact with SYD approach, ATC said they copied their mayday, and they read back copied mayday.

What is your international command experience level?

Again you weren’t there. You don’t know UA ops specs. There was a good report from someone inside WHQ that discussed what the crew reported.

Your level of emotion in discussing this concerns me if you are in any way involved in working on the business side of a cockpit door. If you aren’t involved in that side of airline ops what is it that you do that has made you an expert on what took place in that cockpit? I’m intrigued to know what expertise you have on this matter.

You can draw rings on a map my friend. But you don’t know the fuel state. What happened when Avianca didn’t do the prudent thing and declare a mayday? What would be your comments had UA exhausted all their fuel by not stating they were in a fuel critical situation? A suspect your Monday morning quarterbacking would be a keystroke cyclone

@ Jayunited, can you please share with us the internal report you read? I've said it before and I will say it again, I am very leary of individuals who make posts stating they read something yet there is no verifiable proof that such document or wording on the document, exists. If you cant provide a link, then maybe a screen shot or a pic via your cell phone would work just as well.

Another thing, not sure if it was mentioned. I did read most posts but with 30 min reserve fuel, what would happen if, for whatever reason, the pilot had to initiate a go-around/missed approach (not sure what the right word to use is) right before landing? Would there have been enough fuel to execute a successful go-around?

To ask someone to post an internal company report is ludicrous, especially something safety related. I also work for UA, and what Jay posts is correct not only on this issue but, many others.

Also, under US regulations there is no such thing as declaring a MAYDAY. You declare an emergency. As a pilot myself, if I need ATC's attention now I would use Mayday, Mayday, Mayday to indicate I have an emergency.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with what the crew did. I do not know what kind of fuel they landed in SYD with but, that was probably the bare minimum they were comfortable with. Your final reserve is there to be partially burned if needed.

cougar15 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

article mentioned the plane, a Boeing 787-900, only had 180 passengers on board. A rather light load don't you think?

Firstly there is no such thing as a 787-900, its a 787-9 secondly the latest reports suggest that there were 239 passengers on board.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... d9a1c947ac

Also let me make it quite clear if you are coming on this thread to turn it into your usual DL nonsense, think again, take it elsewhere preferably where no one else has to read it

In technical nomenclature it is a 787-922, you will find, both leasing contracts and insurance certificates are also drawn up in this fashion. As everyone more or less uses the same (re)insurers, I would expect this is industry practise in those fields. But I do of course appreciate this is not a widely used terminology. For these very purposes, Lufthansa operates 747-830´s, not 747-8´s. However, I guess that is a subject for another thread.

Anyone can call something whatever they would like (ie my personal favorite "The Boeing Dreamliner Chuck Especial") but I would find it curious to see a leasing contract or insurance document with 787-X22 written on it. All of UAs dreamliners are registered with the FAA as 787-8/9/10 as BA discontinued using individual customer codes a few years ago. Even the 777-300ERs are 300ERs vs being 322/324ERs, MAX 9s are registered as 737-9 and you will find newer 737-900ERs registered as 900ERs vs the older 924ER. LHs 747-8s are technically 747-830s but that is because they were ordered before BA stopped using customer codes.

As you said a topic for a different thread but AFAIK BA customer codes are no longer used.

goboeing wrote:

How about . . . a crew that is given a holding clearance after passing those airports?

NTL is only around 75 nm north of SYD, the holding fix on the Marln Three Arrival in SYD is at Rinki, which is 85 nm from NTL, or 20 minutes at 250 kts.

United1 wrote:

cougar15 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Firstly there is no such thing as a 787-900, its a 787-9 secondly the latest reports suggest that there were 239 passengers on board.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... d9a1c947ac

Also let me make it quite clear if you are coming on this thread to turn it into your usual DL nonsense, think again, take it elsewhere preferably where no one else has to read it

In technical nomenclature it is a 787-922, you will find, both leasing contracts and insurance certificates are also drawn up in this fashion. As everyone more or less uses the same (re)insurers, I would expect this is industry practise in those fields. But I do of course appreciate this is not a widely used terminology. For these very purposes, Lufthansa operates 747-830´s, not 747-8´s. However, I guess that is a subject for another thread.

Anyone can call something whatever they would like (ie my personal favorite "The Boeing Dreamliner Chuck Especial") but I would find it curious to see a leasing contract or insurance document with 787-X22 written on it. All of UAs dreamliners are registered with the FAA as 787-8/9/10 as BA discontinued using individual customer codes a few years ago. Even the 777-300ERs are 300ERs vs being 322/324ERs, MAX 9s are registered as 737-9 and you will find newer 737-900ERs registered as 900ERs vs the older 924ER. LHs 747-8s are technically 747-830s but that is because they were ordered before BA stopped using customer codes.

As you said a topic for a different thread but AFAIK BA customer codes are no longer used.

Correct. Boeing discontinued customer codes. Pretty sure the 787-8, -9, -10 and 747-8, and 737-7, -8, -9 are shown as such in the Type Certificates. I concur there is no such thing as a 787-900 or 747-800.

As far as the 787 Fuel Leak checklist, it's a very long complex checklist. In summary, if fuel leak is not confirmed you can fly on. If fuel leak is confirmed, you land at the nearest suitable airport.

maxholstemh1521 wrote:

To ask someone to post an internal company report is ludicrous, especially something safety related. I also work for UA, and what Jay posts is correct not only on this issue but, many others.

Also, under US regulations there is no such thing as declaring a MAYDAY. You declare an emergency. As a pilot myself, if I need ATC's attention now I would use Mayday, Mayday, Mayday to indicate I have an emergency.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with what the crew did. I do not know what kind of fuel they landed in SYD with but, that was probably the bare minimum they were comfortable with. Your final reserve is there to be partially burned if needed.

Foreign airlines operating into Australia have a Foreign Air Operators Certificate issued under CASR Part 129, bit like foreign carriers operators operating into the USA have a FAA Part 129 certificate.Basically the point of the certificate is the foreign carrier has to comply with both the home and foreign regulations, they cannot simply ignore the Australian requirements.

Normally coming into Australia foreign carriers first interaction with ATC is via Datalink, they may notified ATC of the emergency via datalink initially.

Under Australian regulations, where “the aircraft’s supply of useable fuel becoming so low (whether or not as a result of fuel starvation) that the pilot declares an emergency in flight” is classified as an immediately reportable event to the ATSB under the Australian Transport Safety Investigation Regulations 2003.

zeke wrote:

maxholstemh1521 wrote:

To ask someone to post an internal company report is ludicrous, especially something safety related. I also work for UA, and what Jay posts is correct not only on this issue but, many others.

Also, under US regulations there is no such thing as declaring a MAYDAY. You declare an emergency. As a pilot myself, if I need ATC's attention now I would use Mayday, Mayday, Mayday to indicate I have an emergency.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with what the crew did. I do not know what kind of fuel they landed in SYD with but, that was probably the bare minimum they were comfortable with. Your final reserve is there to be partially burned if needed.

Foreign airlines operating into Australia have a Foreign Air Operators Certificate issued under CASR Part 129, bit like foreign carriers operators operating into the USA have a FAA Part 129 certificate.Basically the point of the certificate is the foreign carrier has to comply with both the home and foreign regulations, they cannot simply ignore the Australian requirements.

Normally coming into Australia foreign carriers first interaction with ATC is via Datalink, they may notified ATC of the emergency via datalink initially.

Under Australian regulations, where “the aircraft’s supply of useable fuel becoming so low (whether or not as a result of fuel starvation) that the pilot declares an emergency in flight” is classified as an immediately reportable event to the ATSB under the Australian Transport Safety Investigation Regulations 2003.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this reply and what it has to do with the quoted comment. Regardless, since it will be reported to the ATSB as you suggest, you should wait until their report comes out before placing blame on 5 highly qualified professionals.

ual763 wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the point of this reply and what it has to do with the quoted comment.

Because you said “under US regulations there is no such thing as declaring a MAYDAY”, they are operating in Australian airspace and also have to comply with Australian requirements which essentially are plain ICAO.

maxholstemh1521 wrote:

[
To ask someone to post an internal company report is ludicrous, especially something safety related. I also work for UA, and what Jay posts is correct not only on this issue but, many others.

d.

interesting that two people say that they saw and read a company internal report but offer no proof other than suggesting to everyone that, 'Hey, we saw it, this is how it happened'. Sorry but I call BS on it. Its funny how every 'internal' UA report that the one or two UA loyalists post on here, that no one else has access to, makes United out to be the 'poster child'.

Until someone posts something thats verifiable, I will respectfully disagree and challenge what is said.

Keep the thread on topic without resorting to personal attacks, or the thread will be locked.

✈️ atcsundevil

jumbojet wrote:

article mentioned the plane, a Boeing 787-900, only had 180 passengers on board. A rather light load don't you think?

But still a heavier load than the Delta 787-9 flying the same route.

jumbojet wrote:

maxholstemh1521 wrote:

[
To ask someone to post an internal company report is ludicrous, especially something safety related. I also work for UA, and what Jay posts is correct not only on this issue but, many others.

d.

interesting that two people say that they saw and read a company internal report but offer no proof other than suggesting to everyone that, 'Hey, we saw it, this is how it happened'. Sorry but I call BS on it. Its funny how every 'internal' UA report that the one or two UA loyalists post on here, that no one else has access to, makes United out to be the 'poster child'.

Until someone posts something thats verifiable, I will respectfully disagree and challenge what is said.

On what facts will you use to disagree. I too saw a report on this flight. I love my job and would never lost internal sensitive information. If you choose not to believe 3 people that have seen written internal information that is your choice.

zeke wrote:

ual763 wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the point of this reply and what it has to do with the quoted comment.

Because you said “under US regulations there is no such thing as declaring a MAYDAY”, they are operating in Australian airspace and also have to comply with Australian requirements which essentially are plain ICAO.

So Zeke, here is a hypothetical. The flight is dispatched with an alternate. As the crew operates for 14 hours the fuel score is negative but still acceptable. As the crew gets closer in coordination with dispatch they relay they fuel issue. The weather at destination is satisfactory to no longer need the alternate and the crew has acceptable fuel. As they get closer they are given extended delays that were not planned or additional holding instructions. The delays and location required a alert to ATC of the fuel state. In this instance a divert would have most likely caused a crew legality issue upon landing. Thus creating a difficult recovery operation for the customers. Also some of those airports you are saying could be used may not be a 787 ops spec airport for UAL. I contend you are throwing darts at a crew without any of the facts of the event other than a flight aware supposition.

jumbojet wrote:

@ Jayunited, can you please share with us the internal report you read? I've said it before and I will say it again, I am very leary of individuals who make posts stating they read something yet there is no verifiable proof that such document or wording on the document, exists. If you cant provide a link, then maybe a screen shot or a pic via your cell phone would work just as well.

Yeah, he is going to share internal company documents just to satisfy a United hater Delta fanboy like yourself. Gosh, your demand must be much more important than his job. So sad you go through life leary of individuals but want everyone to accept your posts as written gospel about things you know very little about.

jumbojet wrote:

maxholstemh1521 wrote:

[
To ask someone to post an internal company report is ludicrous, especially something safety related. I also work for UA, and what Jay posts is correct not only on this issue but, many others.

d.

interesting that two people say that they saw and read a company internal report but offer no proof other than suggesting to everyone that, 'Hey, we saw it, this is how it happened'. Sorry but I call BS on it. Its funny how every 'internal' UA report that the one or two UA loyalists post on here, that no one else has access to, makes United out to be the 'poster child'.

Until someone posts something thats verifiable, I will respectfully disagree and challenge what is said.

You can make it 3 people who have seen the internal reports and findings but to outsider hater fanboys, that will mean nothing. Nothing respectful about disagreeing, challenging everything about United but preaching how holy Delta is in one's mind is hilarious. People acting this way you do lowers this site to immature levels. I didn't see it so it is not true.

Shocker, in some rules, standards and procedures, some companies have stricter rules than Airbus, Boeing, ICAO and regulatory agencies like the FAA have as their minimums.

CALTECH wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

maxholstemh1521 wrote:

[
To ask someone to post an internal company report is ludicrous, especially something safety related. I also work for UA, and what Jay posts is correct not only on this issue but, many others.

d.

interesting that two people say that they saw and read a company internal report but offer no proof other than suggesting to everyone that, 'Hey, we saw it, this is how it happened'. Sorry but I call BS on it. Its funny how every 'internal' UA report that the one or two UA loyalists post on here, that no one else has access to, makes United out to be the 'poster child'.

Until someone posts something thats verifiable, I will respectfully disagree and challenge what is said.

You can make it 3 people who have seen the internal reports and findings but to outsider hater fanboys, that will mean nothing. Nothing respectful about disagreeing, challenging everything about United but preaching how holy Delta is in one's mind is hilarious. People acting this way you do lowers this site to immature levels. I didn't see it so it is not true.

Wow, so many poeople have seen the internal UA report. I challenge someone to post it, otherwise its a bunch of malarkey. I know a few UA employees, with what seems to be such ease of accessing these internal reports, let me see if I can get my hands on it.

Mayday has been used before in US . Granted, at an international airport, but still it's being used and understood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIt6CDLrPOo&t=60s

jumbojet wrote:

Wow, so many poeople have seen the internal UA report. I challenge someone to post it, otherwise its a bunch of malarkey.

So... you're essentially daring United employees to put their employment at risk for the sake of appeasing your doubts on an enthusiast forum? Cool.

CALTECH wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

article mentioned the plane, a Boeing 787-900, only had 180 passengers on board. A rather light load don't you think?

But still a heavier load than the Delta 787-9 flying the same route.

Delta doesn't fly the B-787 (any variety) the order was cancelled years ago.

mcdu wrote:

So Zeke, here is a hypothetical. The flight is dispatched with an alternate. As the crew operates for 14 hours the fuel score is negative but still acceptable. As the crew gets closer in coordination with dispatch they relay they fuel issue. The weather at destination is satisfactory to no longer need the alternate and the crew has acceptable fuel. As they get closer they are given extended delays that were not planned or additional holding instructions. The delays and location required a alert to ATC of the fuel state. In this instance a divert would have most likely caused a crew legality issue upon landing. Thus creating a difficult recovery operation for the customers. Also some of those airports you are saying could be used may not be a 787 ops spec airport for UAL. I contend you are throwing darts at a crew without any of the facts of the event other than a flight aware supposition.

As far as I am aware BNE is fine for UA, and NTL would be fine in an emergency.

Crew hours are not a factor, please do not try and suggest a valid reason to bypass BNE which was CAVOK for SYD is crew hours, up thread there is a suggestion of the flight being a super heavy 5 crew.

If one is short on gas divert get the gas and let others work out how to recover the aircraft. It may involve the same crew continuing, it might involve them getting rest. In any case safety goes well before any commercial considerations.

The holding they were given was not unusual, this is what is published for all arrivals in ERSA.

ESTIMATED AIRBORNE TRAFFIC DELAYS FOR ARR ACFT may be expected due to terminal area traffic density and/or single RWY operations: DAILY: 20MIN
EXCEPT MON to FRI 2100-0100 (1HR Earlier during HDS), ALL ACFT THAT ARE NOT ILS PRECISION RWY MONITORING (PRM) CAPABLE: 30 MIN.
Note 1: Actual holding times may differ from holding estimates. Historical data on actual holding is available from the NCC.
Note 2: When ILS PRM APCH are in use, ACFT able to comply with ILS PRM PROC will be afforded priority over non-capable ACFT.
Note 3: Outside the hours of daylight saving, FLT SKED BTN 2000 and 2059 that are earlier than SEMAP AFIX time - 30 MIN may expect further DLA associated with curfew restrictions.

It has been suggested elsewhere ATC advised 30 mins (the usual backlog post the 6 am when the local curfew is lifted as SYD opens) traffic holding which is not unusual. ATC assigned them 16L with a massive 2 minutes delay (standard runway assignment for all 767/A330/787 inbound from east). Crew stated they “required” 16R. ATC then assigned 16R with a massive 9 minutes of delay. Aircraft declares mayday fuel.

Our procedures require of us in order to disregard the alternate to have Wx above 1500 ft base and 7.0 km at SYD. They were forecasting from 2200 1000/5.0. We would require an alternate as the forecast is below 1500/7.0.

Our procedures also require two separate runways in order to disregard the alternate, they told ATC they required the longer 16R effectively turning SYD into a single runway airport for them. We would require an alternate as two separate runways are not available assuming the reason 16L was not suitable was due to landing performance. Why they could not use 16L is beyond me. 16L does not work for me at high weights, tailwind, and reverser deactivated. They had around 10 kts of headwind on landing.

I just hope again it was not a commercial consideration to land nearer to the international terminal or not to get warm brakes.

We also have to take into account ATC delays, 20 minutes is the published expected delay, we would contact our ops to get onto ATC to ascertain the nature of the actual delays. If there is known ATC delays, we are required to keep the alternate.

So based on Wx, runways, and delays we would have required the alternate. Means we would have been getting gas in BNE.

Utah744 wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

article mentioned the plane, a Boeing 787-900, only had 180 passengers on board. A rather light load don't you think?

But still a heavier load than the Delta 787-9 flying the same route.

Delta doesn't fly the B-787 (any variety) the order was cancelled years ago.

Thanks for that brilliant post. Wow, that's breaking news, Delta doesn't fly any variety of the 787. First heard here on a.net. Guess the sarcasm went right over somebody's head.

winginit wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Wow, so many poeople have seen the internal UA report. I challenge someone to post it, otherwise its a bunch of malarkey.

So... you're essentially daring United employees to put their employment at risk for the sake of appeasing your doubts on an enthusiast forum? Cool.

Trolls full of malarkey usually make such demands. It's all about 'superior' outsider opinion beating insider knowledge. Fanboys like that will be kept in the dark surrounded by malarkey of their own making. His challenge means nothing.

zeke wrote:

mcdu wrote:

So Zeke, here is a hypothetical. The flight is dispatched with an alternate. As the crew operates for 14 hours the fuel score is negative but still acceptable. As the crew gets closer in coordination with dispatch they relay they fuel issue. The weather at destination is satisfactory to no longer need the alternate and the crew has acceptable fuel. As they get closer they are given extended delays that were not planned or additional holding instructions. The delays and location required a alert to ATC of the fuel state. In this instance a divert would have most likely caused a crew legality issue upon landing. Thus creating a difficult recovery operation for the customers. Also some of those airports you are saying could be used may not be a 787 ops spec airport for UAL. I contend you are throwing darts at a crew without any of the facts of the event other than a flight aware supposition.

As far as I am aware BNE is fine for UA, and NTL would be fine in an emergency.

Crew hours are not a factor, please do not try and suggest a valid reason to bypass BNE which was CAVOK for SYD is crew hours, up thread there is a suggestion of the flight being a super heavy 5 crew.

If one is short on gas divert get the gas and let others work out how to recover the aircraft. It may involve the same crew continuing, it might involve them getting rest. In any case safety goes well before any commercial considerations.

The holding they were given was not unusual, this is what is published for all arrivals in ERSA.

ESTIMATED AIRBORNE TRAFFIC DELAYS FOR ARR ACFT may be expected due to terminal area traffic density and/or single RWY operations: DAILY: 20MIN
EXCEPT MON to FRI 2100-0100 (1HR Earlier during HDS), ALL ACFT THAT ARE NOT ILS PRECISION RWY MONITORING (PRM) CAPABLE: 30 MIN.
Note 1: Actual holding times may differ from holding estimates. Historical data on actual holding is available from the NCC.
Note 2: When ILS PRM APCH are in use, ACFT able to comply with ILS PRM PROC will be afforded priority over non-capable ACFT.
Note 3: Outside the hours of daylight saving, FLT SKED BTN 2000 and 2059 that are earlier than SEMAP AFIX time - 30 MIN may expect further DLA associated with curfew restrictions.

It has been suggested elsewhere ATC advised 30 mins (the usual backlog post the 6 am when the local curfew is lifted as SYD opens) traffic holding which is not unusual. ATC assigned them 16L with a massive 2 minutes delay (standard runway assignment for all 767/A330/787 inbound from east). Crew stated they “required” 16R. ATC then assigned 16R with a massive 9 minutes of delay. Aircraft declares mayday fuel.

Our procedures require of us in order to disregard the alternate to have Wx above 1500 ft base and 7.0 km at SYD. They were forecasting from 2200 1000/5.0. We would require an alternate as the forecast is below 1500/7.0.

Our procedures also require two separate runways in order to disregard the alternate, they told ATC they required the longer 16R effectively turning SYD into a single runway airport for them. We would require an alternate as two separate runways are not available assuming the reason 16L was not suitable was due to landing performance. Why they could not use 16L is beyond me. 16L does not work for me at high weights, tailwind, and reverser deactivated. They had around 10 kts of headwind on landing.

I just hope again it was not a commercial consideration to land nearer to the international terminal or not to get warm brakes.

We also have to take into account ATC delays, 20 minutes is the published expected delay, we would contact our ops to get onto ATC to ascertain the nature of the actual delays. If there is known ATC delays, we are required to keep the alternate.

So based on Wx, runways, and delays we would have required the alternate. Means we would have been getting gas in BNE.

A lot of words about your operation. Not any FACTS on the UAL operation. We do not need two separate runways to remove an alternate. A landing on the other runway may have been possible but it could have also increased the potential for a possible go around with already limited fuel supply.

With the USA FAR 117 the ability to continue after a divert is severely limited. No more of the legal to start, legal to finish operations. The FAR has has limits that offer very little flexibility for the operator.

Since you only fly an A330 long haul operations May be a bit foreign to you. Since you don’t operate under FAR 117 and UAL OPS SPECS I know those are foreign to you.

Here is a novel idea. Why not let the investigation play out?

Haven’t their been some serious Cathay issues over the years with crews and judgement over the years? Glass house my friend.

https://youtu.be/X65Tyrd6QWM

mcdu wrote:

zeke wrote:

mcdu wrote:

So Zeke, here is a hypothetical. The flight is dispatched with an alternate. As the crew operates for 14 hours the fuel score is negative but still acceptable. As the crew gets closer in coordination with dispatch they relay they fuel issue. The weather at destination is satisfactory to no longer need the alternate and the crew has acceptable fuel. As they get closer they are given extended delays that were not planned or additional holding instructions. The delays and location required a alert to ATC of the fuel state. In this instance a divert would have most likely caused a crew legality issue upon landing. Thus creating a difficult recovery operation for the customers. Also some of those airports you are saying could be used may not be a 787 ops spec airport for UAL. I contend you are throwing darts at a crew without any of the facts of the event other than a flight aware supposition.

As far as I am aware BNE is fine for UA, and NTL would be fine in an emergency.

Crew hours are not a factor, please do not try and suggest a valid reason to bypass BNE which was CAVOK for SYD is crew hours, up thread there is a suggestion of the flight being a super heavy 5 crew.

If one is short on gas divert get the gas and let others work out how to recover the aircraft. It may involve the same crew continuing, it might involve them getting rest. In any case safety goes well before any commercial considerations.

The holding they were given was not unusual, this is what is published for all arrivals in ERSA.

ESTIMATED AIRBORNE TRAFFIC DELAYS FOR ARR ACFT may be expected due to terminal area traffic density and/or single RWY operations: DAILY: 20MIN
EXCEPT MON to FRI 2100-0100 (1HR Earlier during HDS), ALL ACFT THAT ARE NOT ILS PRECISION RWY MONITORING (PRM) CAPABLE: 30 MIN.
Note 1: Actual holding times may differ from holding estimates. Historical data on actual holding is available from the NCC.
Note 2: When ILS PRM APCH are in use, ACFT able to comply with ILS PRM PROC will be afforded priority over non-capable ACFT.
Note 3: Outside the hours of daylight saving, FLT SKED BTN 2000 and 2059 that are earlier than SEMAP AFIX time - 30 MIN may expect further DLA associated with curfew restrictions.

It has been suggested elsewhere ATC advised 30 mins (the usual backlog post the 6 am when the local curfew is lifted as SYD opens) traffic holding which is not unusual. ATC assigned them 16L with a massive 2 minutes delay (standard runway assignment for all 767/A330/787 inbound from east). Crew stated they “required” 16R. ATC then assigned 16R with a massive 9 minutes of delay. Aircraft declares mayday fuel.

Our procedures require of us in order to disregard the alternate to have Wx above 1500 ft base and 7.0 km at SYD. They were forecasting from 2200 1000/5.0. We would require an alternate as the forecast is below 1500/7.0.

Our procedures also require two separate runways in order to disregard the alternate, they told ATC they required the longer 16R effectively turning SYD into a single runway airport for them. We would require an alternate as two separate runways are not available assuming the reason 16L was not suitable was due to landing performance. Why they could not use 16L is beyond me. 16L does not work for me at high weights, tailwind, and reverser deactivated. They had around 10 kts of headwind on landing.

I just hope again it was not a commercial consideration to land nearer to the international terminal or not to get warm brakes.

We also have to take into account ATC delays, 20 minutes is the published expected delay, we would contact our ops to get onto ATC to ascertain the nature of the actual delays. If there is known ATC delays, we are required to keep the alternate.

So based on Wx, runways, and delays we would have required the alternate. Means we would have been getting gas in BNE.

A lot of words about your operation. Not any FACTS on the UAL operation. We do not need two separate runways to remove an alternate. A landing on the other runway may have been possible but it could have also increased the potential for a possible go around with already limited fuel supply.

With the USA FAR 117 the ability to continue after a divert is severely limited. No more of the legal to start, legal to finish operations. The FAR has has limits that offer very little flexibility for the operator.

Since you only fly an A330 long haul operations May be a bit foreign to you. Since you don’t operate under FAR 117 and UAL OPS SPECS I know those are foreign to you.

Here is a novel idea. Why not let the investigation play out?

Haven’t their been some serious Cathay issues over the years with crews and judgement over the years? Glass house my friend.

https://youtu.be/X65Tyrd6QWM

What was even more foolish on Cathay’s part was the 777 crew who told the passengers they may have to ditch, and told them to put their live vests on, because they were diverting into Shemya with a simple Avionics cooling fan bearing failure. That created a lot of unnecessary panic with the passengers. Then CX tried to deflect it by blaming it on the Boeing Smoke/Fire/Fumes checklist. Their crew performed poorly so they needed a scapegoat.

While I’m neutral on this incident and waiting for the facts, I agree that a Cathay Pilot has no business throwing stones about about another airline’s crew’s poor performance, if that were the case.

mcdu wrote:

A lot of words about your operation. Not any FACTS on the UAL operation.

You made a hypothetical scenario, I answered it. It seems you don’t like my comprehensive answer to your hypothetical scenario as it does not fit your agenda.

mcdu wrote:

A landing on the other runway may have been possible but it could have also increased the potential for a possible go around with already limited fuel supply.

Low fuel checklist I understand on the 787 requires the use of reduced flap and increased runway distance.

mcdu wrote:

With the USA FAR 117 the ability to continue after a divert is severely limited. No more of the legal to start, legal to finish operations. The FAR has has limits that offer very little flexibility for the operator.

That is a commercial consideration which should have no influence on a safety related fuel decision.

mcdu wrote:

Since you only fly an A330 long haul operations May be a bit foreign to you. Since you don’t operate under FAR 117 and UAL OPS SPECS I know those are foreign to you.

I have been flying the 747-400, A340-200, A340-300, A340-600, A330-300, A350-900, and A350-1000 on international operations on sector times between half hour to 18 plus hours for a couple of decades.

mcdu wrote:

Here is a novel idea. Why not let the investigation play out?

The investigation will be years away from reporting if UA have reported it to them.

mcdu wrote:

Haven’t their been some serious Cathay issues over the years with crews and judgement over the years? Glass house my friend.

https://youtu.be/X65Tyrd6QWM

I agree totally, the then Boeing chief pilot at the time who did that was dismissed for that. I didn’t support those actions at the time, still don’t.

Double post due server error

BoeingGuy wrote:

What was even more foolish on Cathay’s part was the 777 crew who told the passengers they may have to ditch, and told them to put their live vests on, because they were diverting into Shemya with a simple Avionics cooling fan bearing failure. That created a lot of unnecessary panic with the passengers. Then CX tried to deflect it by blaming it on the Boeing Smoke/Fire/Fumes checklist. Their crew performed poorly so they needed a scapegoat.

While I’m neutral on this incident and waiting for the facts, I agree that a Cathay Pilot has no business throwing stones about about another airline’s crew’s poor performance, if that were the case.

The crew has smoke in the cockpit and performed the Boeing checklist.

How does the crew know it is the cooling fan that has burnt out ?

What checklist does Boeing have for such a mechanical failure that results in smoke in the cockpit other than the one they followed ?

As you saying they should not have carried out the checklist or diverted ?

zeke wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

What was even more foolish on Cathay’s part was the 777 crew who told the passengers they may have to ditch, and told them to put their live vests on, because they were diverting into Shemya with a simple Avionics cooling fan bearing failure. That created a lot of unnecessary panic with the passengers. Then CX tried to deflect it by blaming it on the Boeing Smoke/Fire/Fumes checklist. Their crew performed poorly so they needed a scapegoat.

While I’m neutral on this incident and waiting for the facts, I agree that a Cathay Pilot has no business throwing stones about about another airline’s crew’s poor performance, if that were the case.

The crew has smoke in the cockpit and performed the Boeing checklist.

How does the crew know it is the cooling fan that has burnt out ?

What checklist does Boeing have for such a mechanical failure that results in smoke in the cockpit other than the one they followed ?

As you saying they should not have carried out the checklist or diverted ?

Not at all. I am well familiar with that checklist and the rationale behind each step. The issue was the Flight Deck miscommunicated to the Cabin Crew and the Cabin Crew read the Ditching instructions to the passengers and caused unnecessary panic. The passengers put on their life vests. Then Cathay in effect tried to blame it on the Boeing checklist.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Not at all. I am well familiar with that checklist and the rationale behind each step. The issue was the Flight Deck miscommunicated to the Cabin Crew and the Cabin Crew read the Ditching instructions to the passengers and caused unnecessary panic. The passengers put on their life vests. Then Cathay in effect tried to blame it on the Boeing checklist.

I am not aware of the miscommunication you refer to. That incident followed the onboard fires with UPS and Asiana where 747s were lost. There have been 6 events reported on 777-300 series where a wiring loom situated above the forward cargo compartment was incorrectly routed, chafed against the support structure and short circuited. This has been detected by crews as a burning smell in the cockpit.

The smoke checklists all say land at the nearest suitable, when you are a long way from an airport over water that means ditching is a possibility. We are taught that in flight fires in areas we cannot fight can result in the loss of an aircraft in as little as 10-20 minutes. To prepare for a ditching takes a lot of time.

I do not understand what you feel the crew did wrong, they prepared for the worst case, putting passenger safety first.