Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Our 757-200 Doesn't Make It From STO-EWR  
User currently offlineWinglet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4340 times:

Recently flew from Stockholm to Newark, aboard a CO 757-200 with those beautiful winglets. Due apparently to strong headwinds we had to make an emergency landing in Bangor Maine as we ran out of fuel. The pilot made it sound routine on the intercom but when we landed, my curiosity and small hobbish knowelegde from airliners.net took me up to the cockpit where the pilots where standing outside chatting with a TSA agent as we refulled. I asked several questions, showed off the little knowledge I had of which i got that this was the first time this had ever happened to them and we almost didn't make it to this airport.

My question is, if a 757 cant make the route from Stockholm to Newark with strong headwinds, isn't it a risk to use these aircraft on such long routes?

If of interest to anyone I can dig up the flight info from the ticket stub and itenary I might still have somewhere.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRendezvous From New Zealand, joined May 2001, 521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4328 times:

My understanding would be that (I assume it's an ETOPs flight) that the aircraft would be fairly close to alternate airports along the route. In the 757/767 aircraft (and probably all others) the FMC will give you a fuel estimate for your destination, saying how much it thinks you'll have left. That's based on forecast winds and actual winds calculated by the aircraft. This can be crosschecked with the paper flight plan with proposed fuel useage. If there is any major discrepencies then you need to monitor more closely and take action if need be.

I guess the only real danger is if the crew do not pay attention to what they're being told.


User currently offlineWinglet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4321 times:

It seems though the 757 is pushing it to make it across the water when there is headwind, I guess whats up for discussion here, is the 757 a suitable choice for this route by Continental? after my experience I would say absolutely not as our aircraft is one of the only if not the only? 757 with winglets so far?

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting Winglet (Thread starter):
Due apparently to strong headwinds we had to make an emergency landing in Bangor Maine as we ran out of fuel

Wouldn't that be taken into Account for the Route concerned.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

It's appropriate if you take these factors into account. It's not unusual for CO's 757's to divert for a fuel stop depending on headwinds and traffic conditions at EWR. On most of the flights, this causes no problem, but on some it will call for a tech stop. If you can run the route without problem 95% of the time, there's no reason not to.

I'm curious exactly how "critical" fuel was at the time...it seems to me that it could be critical problem if they had tried to continue on to EWR, but if it was really critical at Bangor those must have been some incredible headwinds since that's a full 400nm short of EWR, and they already build in reserves to the full flightplan.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineBri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4283 times:

Smart pilots. Declare an emergency and get on the ground before you have a REAL emergency. I'm sure once they were into the calculated reserve fuel, it was emergency time. Private pilots, take note.


Position and hold
User currently offlineJHFLYER From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 4249 times:

Quoting Bri2k1 (Reply 5):
I'm sure once they were into the calculated reserve fuel, it was emergency time. Private pilots, take note.

I think that is a wake up call to all pilots not just private ones.
It doesn't matter how many hours under the belt if you don't take notice of what the aircraft or you caculations are telling you, you will die eventually. I think it is good to see pilots with the courage to say NO we are landing and NO we can't make it.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

So was this a real "emergency landing" with fire trucks, ATC priority, drama, call to the chief pilots office, etc or was this simply an unscheduled tech stop for fuel? There is a difference.

It sounds like an unscheduled tech stop for fuel.....


User currently offlineWinglet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4107 times:

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 4):
I'm curious exactly how "critical" fuel was at the time...it seems to me that it could be critical problem if they had tried to continue on to EWR, but if it was really critical at Bangor those must have been some incredible headwinds since that's a full 400nm short of EWR, and they already build in reserves to the full flightplan.

They said they were the strongest headwinds they have encountered on this new route and Bangor was nearly not possible.

It was a tech stop not an emergency landing as SATL382G points out the differences. However, it was too close for comfort and this time of year when the headwinds are getting stronger the CO 757's seem a little weak. However splendid business class in comparison to SAS a330's.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17187 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4095 times:

Quoting Winglet (Thread starter):
Due apparently to strong headwinds we had to make an emergency landing in Bangor Maine as we ran out of fuel.

It's not an emergency landing if it's not a fuel emergency, which I doubt it was. It was most probably a technical stop.

Quoting Winglet (Thread starter):

My question is, if a 757 cant make the route from Stockholm to Newark with strong headwinds, isn't it a risk to use these aircraft on such long routes?

Not really. There are plenty of diversion airports within range if you don't quite have the legs on that day. As stated, if you can make 95% of the flights non-stop, you've still opened up a market too small to be served with a 762 or 332.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4086 times:

Quoting Winglet (Reply 8):
However, it was too close for comfort and this time of year

Either the aircraft was legally dispatched to EWR, and then redispatched to it's fuel stop, or it wasn't. There is no "too close for comfort". In fact I'd say it's a safe bet that the aircraft probably had sufficient fuel to make EWR, but not enough to make it "legally" i.e. with IFR reserves.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 10):
Either the aircraft was legally dispatched to EWR, and then redispatched to it's fuel stop, or it wasn't. There is no "too close for comfort".

I doubt the aircraft was actually dispatched to EWR originally. The flightplan would have been filed to EWR, but the flight given a dispatch release to Bangor, with a redispatch point somewhere over the Atlantic. Once reaching that redispatch point the crew looks at the fuel. If they have enough fuel for redispatch they are redispatched to EWR. If not they change their flightplan and land at Bangor. The dispatcher completes an new dispatch to EWR and files a new flight plan.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineWinglet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4007 times:

The captain said there was no way we would make it to EWR, it wasn't a matter of legal reserves, as we barely made it to Bangor he said. The co-pilot was chattering away on his mobile and after he finished I discussed with him the point of the winglets being added and this was the first 757 to have the winglets added. To my suprize he didn't know that fact and also didn't know why they were added? I said I read they were added as they increase fuel efficentcy by something like 5% on long haul operations, he said, "oh".

User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

Quoting Winglet (Reply 12):
The captain said there was no way we would make it to EWR, it wasn't a matter of legal reserves, as we barely made it to Bangor he said.

Were that true than it would have been an emergency landing vs a tech stop. Are you sure the crew wasn't just playing stupid for an annoying passenger?


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3977 times:

Winglet,

I'm curious as to what date this happened. Maybe I can do a little digging if I have the date.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3970 times:

there is no way that the flight would have been dispatched if they did not have enough fuel to reach EWR according to the wx available at the time of dispatch. however, as we all know wx can change very rapidly. now, while landing to get gas is not normal it is definately not an emergency. as pointed out earlier, the airplane would more than likely not made it back to EWR with legal reserves, therefore it landed to tank up and make it back without further incident. even in the days of rising fuel costs, a few thousand pounds of gas are cheaper than an FAA fine!


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently onlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2603 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Winglet (Reply 12):
The captain said there was no way we would make it to EWR, it wasn't a matter of legal reserves, as we barely made it to Bangor he said.

Sorry, but I don't buy this for a second. When it becomes appearent that an aircraft will not have sufficient fuel to reach it's destination on Trans-Atlantic flights it is usually due to winds not being as forecast, optimum levels not being granted by ATC or an inflight re-route by ATC.

In these instances the crew will plan to make an en-route tech stop somewhere convenient well before a critical fuel situation is reached. The pilots will not fly the aircraft on past Goose Bay, Gander, St Johns, Halifax and a host of other airports and then declare a fuel emergency to land in Bangor with below minimum reserves.

If that actually was the case, and there were no other mitigating factors such as every other en-route airport being closed due weather, then the crew would almost certainly have been grounded on arrival in BGR pending an investigation of why they flew an aircraft into a fuel emergency.

I've had aircraft make en-route fuel stops from time to time - it's never been a fuel emergency - just a case of choosing and planning a convenient fuel stop.

Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13203 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3959 times:

It has been discussed here a number of times that 757 ops by CO and others westbound to the eastern USA having to make a fuel stop in Bangor or Eastern Canada airports like Gander. Perhaps another reason was the possibilities of weather related delays at EWR. That would mean that combined with the severe headwinds, probably the leftovers of a tropical depression/storm, would push the limits of fuel range. Last week and part of the previous week, we had in the Northeastern USA, major rainstorms, with something like 30 + cms/12 inches of rain over 8 days, with most of that over 2 days. We also have had days because of those heavy rains, heavy morning fog on other days, also causing multi-hour delays at EWR for landings and takeoffs. (EWR is only about a mile from NY Harbor, and only a few miles from the Atlantic ocean, only a few feet above sea level).

User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1299 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3786 times:

Quoting Winglet (Reply 12):
The captain said there was no way we would make it to EWR, it wasn't a matter of legal reserves, as we barely made it to Bangor he said.

Perhaps he was implying there was no way they would have made it legally to EWR. While I cannot know for sure, it would seem to me that barely making it to Bangor would have been an extreme emergency, and certainly the final flight for that pilot!



You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineMandargb From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3507 times:

Actually on a similir note
Once my relative was travelling on SFO-HongKong in SQ in a 747-400 and they made a Fuel halt in Taipei (Taiwan)!

I was bit surprised when she told me that.
If they made it to taipei, they would have made it to hong kong also. Mind you this much after Kaitak was closed. So they were to make it to Chek Lap Kok.)

They remained on apron without opening the exits for an hour and started off for Hong Kong immediately.

Does anybody know if it is a common thing from SFO/LAX to HKG in SQ or CX


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3479 times:

Quoting Winglet (Thread starter):
Due apparently to strong headwinds we had to make an emergency landing in Bangor Maine as we ran out of fuel.

Is this like "almost pregnant"?

I wasn't there, so all I can do is give my opinion. It sounds a little strange to me!

As has been pointed out, it's most likely a case of a re-dispatch flight plan, and a tech stop.

I don't know what date this was, but certainly the aircraft could have been dispatched with a certain alternate(s) and enroute the alternate weather could have changed making the original selection unusable. There is a host of things that could have prompted the tech stop. However, the implication that this is somehow "unsafe" is just a little over the top!

Quoting Mandargb (Reply 19):
Does anybody know if it is a common thing from SFO/LAX to HKG in SQ or CX

Common, no but it does happen. Things change and the forecast isn't always spot on. Again, SQ flies this as a re-dispatch flight. If you don't have the fuel to make it to HKG then you continue on to TPE which is your original destination (even though the flight is supposed to go LAX-HKG). It's not really that big of a deal.


User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3453 times:

Thinking about that the alternates at closer distances like Gander, Halifax, Moncton etc. are all located in Canada, how likely is it that CO´s pilots are "instructed" to "make it" to Bangor (= "home soil") for a fuel stop ? Are there differences in fuel prices between BGR and those "remote" locations in Canada ?

BTW, would a fuel stop in Canada make any differences on all those security issues ?

Maybe just wild guesses, but those came to my mind while reading through all the replies.

-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineLitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 7):
So was this a real "emergency landing" with fire trucks, ATC priority, drama, call to the chief pilots office, etc or was this simply an unscheduled tech stop for fuel? There is a difference.

No drama or anything involved, I'm sure ... but remember, there's a full-out MAYDAY emergency landing where they roll all the emergency equipment; the expectation there is the plane is in serious trouble and there's a good likelihood of crash/fire/rescue. So they roll the kitchen sink.

Then there's a FUEL emergency ... means "we're almost out of gas" and "we need down NOW". No crash trucks needed, just a runway ASAP.

If you remember several years back, Avianca's 707 that crashed in New York went down because the crew never stated they had a FUEL emergency (there was a language barrier) ... the controllers, not realizing their dire circumstances, didn't give them a priority vector, and the plane ran dry and crashed.

An unscheduled tech stop is just that, a diversion to an airport other than ones intended destination ... no emergency declared, and plane lands normally (presumably slotted normally into traffic). Such things are always planned for and accounted for in flight plans.

(all IMHO mind you, so if I made any mistakes, please comment and correct)

- litz


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Our 757-200 Doesn't Make It From STO-EWR
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Engines Do The DL 757-200's Use? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 08:27:20 by Usair320
757-200 Varieties... Differences? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 05:34:35 by Tornado82
Need Some Detailed 757-200 Info. posted Sun Apr 10 2005 00:00:39 by Dan2002
757-200 Old 3 Crew Aircraft posted Sun Jan 11 2004 17:25:58 by Ryder10uk
757-200 & "Heavy" Designation posted Fri Nov 7 2003 05:41:32 by RockyRacoon
Boeing 757-200, Kissing The Ground? posted Sat Sep 20 2003 04:11:01 by Tarzanboy
B-757-200 Weight Question posted Sat May 31 2003 16:42:35 by MxCtrlr
Difference Between 757 And 757-200 posted Thu Mar 7 2002 00:27:02 by H. Simpson
Looking For A Team Charter 757-200 posted Fri Feb 1 2002 08:58:32 by Notar
737-900 Vs 757-200 posted Wed Jan 9 2002 00:27:15 by Zebfly2

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format