FFlyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 732 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4516 times:
Some two weeks ago the SAS flight from Chicago to Stockholm, Sweden was unable to land at ARN due to fog. The designated first alternate airport (I think Gothenburg) was too far (?!), and the flight was diverted to Helsinki, Finland. The aircraft (don't know the type) was at point very low on fuel, and could not have made it if there would have been an aborted landing. Helsinki airport was in full emergency status, and the a/c landed safely. This situation (not to be able to go around) is not acceptable, and there is an investigation going on.
I'm not blaming SAS here, but how is it possible that any flight can end up running out of fuel like that? What should they have done? Instead of trusting/gambling for regular landing at ARN, should they have had to refuel on route (in Iceland?)? Obviously there had been heavy headwinds, and excessive fuel burn.
Navigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1032 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4294 times:
I think it is a bit too early to jump to any conclusions without getting all the facts. I certainly don´t think the crew gambled when they made a decision to continue to Stockholm and later divert to Helsinki. This flight will probably be subject to an investigation and you will be able to read more about it once all the facts are collected. Remaining fuel quantity will be checked in that report. Then we know for sure if they had fuel for any extension of the flight.
Since Gothenburg and Helsinki are both at about the same distances from Stockholm, I think there must have been more to the decision to change alternate than the distance. Perhaps the weather in Gothenburg...
ARN From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 253 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3744 times:
There are several airports closer to ARN than HEL and GOT that could handle a 333. Västerås, Örebro and Stockholm-Skavsta could have been options, but perhaps they were closed due to the same weather conditions?
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3456 times:
The topic is a bit inaccurate, as they didn't run out of fuel in the same context as the Hapag-Lloyd A310 at Vienna, the Gimli Glider, or the A330 that dead-sticked into the Azores, i.e. total fuel starvation. It's more a situation of (apparently) having insufficient fuel reserves. They flew A to B, diverted to and landed safely at C, but were "low" on fuel at C.
We dispatchers (standard disclaimer: US Part 121 Domestic/Flag ops) are intimiately involved in these kinds of situations, and the decision -when- to divert a flight is made jointly between PIC and dispatcher, and considers various legalities and operational variables such as weather and possible ATC delays at the possible alternates. Different countries have different regulations, and depending upon which one, it may be purely a PIC decision. This latter type of system has its own pitfalls, and 1990's Avianca 52 at near JFK is a good example of what can happen in the absence of functional operational control. In fact, NTSB cited that ahead of other contributing factors in their accident report.
Whatever the variables associated with this SAS incident, you can rest assured that it will be investigated, and recommendations (if any) made to prevent recurrences.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 732 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Aug 2003, 166 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1032 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
