User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:52 am

enzo011 wrote:
Maybe you guys can clear this up as you seem to be taking on the poster over a different issue. Is being low on fuel enough reason to declare an emergency? Or is there different stages of low fuel or just one? What is the definition of low fuel?


It has already been explained a couple of times:

The declaration of "MINIMUM FUEL" informs ATC that, for a specific aerodrome of intended landing, the aircraft has sufficient fuel remaining to follow the cleared routing, execute an arrival and approach procedure and land with the required fuel reserves. However, there is little or no extra fuel on board and any change to the existing clearance could result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel.

The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency ”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. Declaration of a fuel emergency is an explicit statement that priority handling by ATC is both required and expected.

Final reserve fuel is the minimum fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at 1,500 feet above the alternate aerodrome or, if an alternate is not required, at the destination aerodrome at holding speed in ISA conditions
 
mm320cap
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:35 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:55 am

zeke wrote:
flight152 wrote:
We’re not talking about minimum fuel, rather declaring an emergency which DOES get you priority handling. Period.


Get with the program and read what was quoted before you crack out a reply which is not true.

Jetblueguy22 said that user had no idea what he was talking about, when what he posted was correct.

“It is kind of stupid rule, put in place to avoid airlines not carrying enough fuel.

Low of fuel is just an advisory to ATC, you have to declare MAYDAY FUEL to get priority landing. You also have to commit to an airport to declare MAYDAY FUEL.”

Do you fly an airliner ? Do you know what happens when you declare minimum fuel or mayday fuel ? You get a visit from the CAA after you shut down and you have to prove to them you are actually in that state. Been a number of instances in the past 12 months where aircraft have been making these calls when they were not in the condition.

The real issue here is why did they hang around BOM for an hour holding before diverting, and why was HYD chosen as there were other closer alternates.

India is not some backwater country they have datalink, radar, and vhf coverage everywhere over land, also one of the few countries to have their own GNSS. It is very busy airspace, with most of the larger Indian airports extremely busy all day round including late at night.


He didn’t say “minimum fuel” is not a reason for declaring a fuel emergency. He said “LOW fuel” is not a reason. LOW fuel IS a reason for declaring an emergency, if you’re going to land with less than 30 minutes. The terminology matters here.

You also state that per ICAO if you divert to a filed alternate they are required to accept you. Well, apparently, Indian ATC violated that rule as they refused that request due to saturation.

Lastly, the crew declared a MAYDAY due to low fuel and was told to hold. It took 4 MAYDAY tries for them to be cleared for the approach. Regardless of how they got into that situation that’s absolutely aggregious and incredible. Not sure why you’re so hell bent on blaming the crew for this incident, but it seems clear to me they were “set up” by an unfortunate set of circumstances and an inept ATC system. They had more patience than I would have. I would have started the approach regardless after the second MAYDAY call.
 
USAirKid
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:26 am

enzo011 wrote:

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:
India is well known as a place where crews do not like diverting as its a third world country with poor hotels and other amenities outside of the major cities. Also, there are many horror stories that float around airlines about how badly some of the airports in India handle diversions.


So its okay for a pilot to come close to running out of fuel because he doesn't want to go to a city that doesn't have good hotels? Surely safety comes first and the comfort of the crews stay comes second?


Its a form of Get-There-Itis. "The determination of a pilot to reach a destination even when conditions for flying are very dangerous." Its a documented cause of accidents. Although in this case the AC pilots seemed to keep it reasonably in check.
 
MSJYOP28Apilot
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:09 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:45 am

enzo011 wrote:

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:
India is well known as a place where crews do not like diverting as its a third world country with poor hotels and other amenities outside of the major cities. Also, there are many horror stories that float around airlines about how badly some of the airports in India handle diversions.


So its okay for a pilot to come close to running out of fuel because he doesn't want to go to a city that doesn't have good hotels? Surely safety comes first and the comfort of the crews stay comes second?


No but it explains one likely reason he held for so long before diverting. If he had known before hand that the alternates would all become unavailable, I doubt he would have held for that long. But in that absence, the desire to avoid a painful diversion kicks in. He probably thought his alternate would be there after the holding fuel was exhausted. When it wasnt, he was down to few options.

It is not that often that a flight holds for one hour. Most crews bail to their alternate after 20-30 minutes in holding unless the situation is quickly improving or it is known for sure they will be released after holding longer.

Also, you would be very surprised at the reasons some pilots do certain things. The widebodies are usually the highest paying and thus they go pretty senior. This means you can get guys that are not particularly comfortable with the type of flying they are doing because they are doing it purely for the money. Those are the ones that would be more likely to get in a situation like this as they are not very comfortable flying in the environment to begin with.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11443
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 07, 2017 9:01 am

Mir wrote:
And the reason they ended up at HYD is that their planned alternate did not accept them.


I will let the report annunciate my thoughts on that matter. Also I will let the report explain why when you are in the aircraft running out of fuel you tell ops what you are doing instead of being driven by commercial considerations.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1468
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:15 am

Finn350 wrote:
It has already been explained a couple of times:

The declaration of "MINIMUM FUEL" informs ATC that, for a specific aerodrome of intended landing, the aircraft has sufficient fuel remaining to follow the cleared routing, execute an arrival and approach procedure and land with the required fuel reserves. However, there is little or no extra fuel on board and any change to the existing clearance could result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel.

The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency ”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. Declaration of a fuel emergency is an explicit statement that priority handling by ATC is both required and expected.

Final reserve fuel is the minimum fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at 1,500 feet above the alternate aerodrome or, if an alternate is not required, at the destination aerodrome at holding speed in ISA conditions


If you look at the reply right after yours it seems we are talking about what is the terminology that was used and if that is an emergency. We also have the following post by Zeke,

zeke wrote:
Low of fuel is just an advisory to ATC, you have to declare MAYDAY FUEL to get priority landing. You also have to commit to an airport to declare MAYDAY FUEL.”


So I am wondering on the arguments on this thread, is low fuel an emergency and dtw2hyd is wrong with his post, or was he correct that its not an emergency yet but can lead to one as fuel eventually runs out?

USAirKid wrote:
Its a form of Get-There-Itis. "The determination of a pilot to reach a destination even when conditions for flying are very dangerous." Its a documented cause of accidents. Although in this case the AC pilots seemed to keep it reasonably in check.


I can understand that and it is worrying that it seems like this flight decided to keep flying and get into some trouble with fuel due to this possibly. It will be interesting to know exactly why the decisions were taken once we have all the information.


MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:
No but it explains one likely reason he held for so long before diverting. If he had known before hand that the alternates would all become unavailable, I doubt he would have held for that long. But in that absence, the desire to avoid a painful diversion kicks in. He probably thought his alternate would be there after the holding fuel was exhausted. When it wasnt, he was down to few options.

It is not that often that a flight holds for one hour. Most crews bail to their alternate after 20-30 minutes in holding unless the situation is quickly improving or it is known for sure they will be released after holding longer.

Also, you would be very surprised at the reasons some pilots do certain things. The widebodies are usually the highest paying and thus they go pretty senior. This means you can get guys that are not particularly comfortable with the type of flying they are doing because they are doing it purely for the money. Those are the ones that would be more likely to get in a situation like this as they are not very comfortable flying in the environment to begin with.


I can understand the need to try and get to the destination, even if it means holding longer than usual. I would hope that the desire to get to the destination didn't put the flight into any trouble with fuel instead of getting to an alternate earlier. We will just have to wait for more information from all sides before we can make up our own minds who, if anyone, was to blame in this incident.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:07 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
[

I haven't found ATC in India particularly hard to understand due to the language barrier when listening. The smooth flowing nature of English spoken with an Indian accent isn't always the easiest to understand on a radio for an outsider but I don't think language standards are the problem. Other countries are far worse.


Accents have got nothing to do with. I understand Urdu, Punjabi and Hindi too so flying in that airspace is no issue. The problems arise with non routine situations. ATC there really struggles with medical emergencies and diversions. That boils down to ATC language/phraseology training which is largely a textbook and box ticking exercise.

hayzel777 wrote:
Singapore?! I thought there main language was English?

What happened at SIN?


There was an incident with another airline last year where they had declared a mayday and requested immediate radar vectors to land. Singapore ATC's response was to request the aircraft to take up the hold at bobag and when the crew refused, ATC offered them another holding position closer to the airport.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:14 am

enzo011 wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
It has already been explained a couple of times:

The declaration of "MINIMUM FUEL" informs ATC that, for a specific aerodrome of intended landing, the aircraft has sufficient fuel remaining to follow the cleared routing, execute an arrival and approach procedure and land with the required fuel reserves. However, there is little or no extra fuel on board and any change to the existing clearance could result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel.

The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency ”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. Declaration of a fuel emergency is an explicit statement that priority handling by ATC is both required and expected.

Final reserve fuel is the minimum fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at 1,500 feet above the alternate aerodrome or, if an alternate is not required, at the destination aerodrome at holding speed in ISA conditions


If you look at the reply right after yours it seems we are talking about what is the terminology that was used and if that is an emergency. We also have the following post by Zeke,

zeke wrote:
Low of fuel is just an advisory to ATC, you have to declare MAYDAY FUEL to get priority landing. You also have to commit to an airport to declare MAYDAY FUEL.”


So I am wondering on the arguments on this thread, is low fuel an emergency and dtw2hyd is wrong with his post, or was he correct that its not an emergency yet but can lead to one as fuel eventually runs out?.


The TSB Canada bulletin describing the incident seems not be available on-line. FlightGlobal has the following quote:

The aircraft had originally been bound for Mumbai but was shuttled between alternate airports owing to capacity problems.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada states in a bulletin that it is "in contact" with India's accident investigation authority over the 19 September incident.

The aircraft (C-FGEI), which departed Toronto on 18 September, had been operating AC46 to Mumbai with 177 passengers and 14 crew members.

But Mumbai air traffic controllers cancelled the approach after a runway excursion involving another aircraft. The bulletin does not specifically identify this incident, but a SpiceJet Boeing 737-800 suffered an excursion shortly before the 787's arrival.

The Canadian bulletin says the 787 entered a hold for 1h but its crew then opted to divert to their alternate.

It does not identify the alternate but states that air traffic control informed the crew that they could not be accommodated owing to reaching maximum capacity.

The crew then chose to divert a second time to Hyderabad, after consulting with the carrier's operations centre, only to be informed by air traffic control en route that Hyderabad had already reached maximum capacity and could not handle the flight.

According to the bulletin Air Canada informed investigators that air traffic control "continued trying to divert the flight or attempted to place it in another hold", adding that the crew had to declare a Mayday over the aircraft's low-fuel situation four times before being cleared for a straight-in approach to Hyderabad's runway 09L.

Flight AC46, which has a scheduled duration of around 14h 30min, had been operating for around 17h at the time of arrival. The aircraft landed safely.


Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nd-441893/

All the details are not there, but it appears that the fuel emergency developed after 2nd diversion en route to Hyderabad when the ATC informed the airport had reached maximum capacity and could not handle the flight. It is not clear if the aircraft had declared "MINIMUM FUEL" before that. Even if they had declared "MINIMUM FUEL" it was not an emergency before the crew declared "MAYDAY FUEL" after which the ATC should have offered a straight-in approach as soon as feasible. So the questions are:
- if and when did aircraft declare "MINIMUM FUEL"
- if the aircraft had declared "MINIMUM FUEL" why was it being tried to being diverted a 3rd time or placed in hold in Hyderabad
- after declaring "MAYDAY FUEL" why wasn't straight-in approach offered as soon as feasible (if that indeed was the case)

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

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

Regarding dtw2hyd's "low fuel is not an emergency" is an inaccurate statement, as it is not clear if he is referring to "MINIMUM FUEL" or "MAYDAY FUEL" situation.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:35 am

Finn350 wrote:
- if the aircraft had declared "MINIMUM FUEL" why was it being tried to being diverted a 3rd time or placed in hold in Hyderabad
- after declaring "MAYDAY FUEL" why wasn't straight-in approach offered as soon as feasible (if that indeed was the case)


Watch fr24 playback. Once it left hold at Mumbai it took a straight-in approach to Hyderabad. There was no hold.

Indian ATC will have all recordings and probably DGCA downloaded CVR after landing at Hyderabad. TSB shouldn't have any trouble getting to the bottom of this.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:40 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
- if the aircraft had declared "MINIMUM FUEL" why was it being tried to being diverted a 3rd time or placed in hold in Hyderabad
- after declaring "MAYDAY FUEL" why wasn't straight-in approach offered as soon as feasible (if that indeed was the case)


Watch fr24 playback. Once it left hold at Mumbai it took a straight-in approach to Hyderabad. There was no hold.

Indian ATC will have all recordings and probably DGCA downloaded CVR after landing at Hyderabad. TSB shouldn't have any trouble getting to the bottom of this.


It said TRIED to be diverted or placed in hold, as per the TSB Canada bulletin.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 337
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 07, 2017 11:37 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Assuming this is coming from Indian news media

MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY <call sign> we have MAYDAY FUEL

That is four times MAYDAY.


shankly wrote:
"MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY" is actually the ICAO standard, representing a single mayday call.


Finn350 wrote:
According to the bulletin Air Canada informed investigators that air traffic control "continued trying to divert the flight or attempted to place it in another hold", adding that the crew had to declare a Mayday over the aircraft's low-fuel situation four times....


In a nutshell you can see the problem right here. Our Indian correspondent hears four "Mayday" and counts it as four times Mayday.
I must admit I haven't seen the ATC transcripts, but I would like to believe that the TSB bulletin is correct and there were four separate Mayday calls, or 16 "Mayday's" as dtw2hyd would have it.
p.s. I'm sure the crew were not just thinking of themselves when considering alternate diversion airports. I would like to think they were also considering the inconvenience that would be visited on their 177 pax. Having said that, getting the plane down in one piece over-rides all such considerations
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
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2091
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:31 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
AFAIK, low on fuel is not a valid reason to declare an emergency. That is the rule.


What? That's a pretty valid reason.

Low fuel is ABSOLUTELY a valid reason to declare an emergency. There are distinct differences in how pilots need to communicate fuel to ATC — "minimum fuel" is not an emergency, but results in no undue delay to the aircraft, while "emergency fuel" results in priority handling. Avianca found this out the hard way in the 80s.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:53 pm

Finn350 wrote:
If the Air Canada crew, after declaring emergency, were offered alternate airports that were nearer than Hyberabad and the portion of the recording where EK229 crew, after declaring emergency, were offered a hold pattern was cut off, then these two are pretty similar (assuming the TSB Canada bulletin is factually correct).


Again where is the TSB bulletin, even if there is one, it probably states what AC Crew told them. When crew makes first MAYDAY call is crucial. ATC recordings/CVR will have the details.

It is AC crew fault circling Mumbai for one hour while others were skipping town.
Even while circling Mumbai crew didn't plan more alternates.
Listening to chaos on the radio, they should have planned better.

While ATC was trying to offer the closest airport with capacity for a safe landing and crew were looking for a city hotel with infinity pool and best sushi, sure ATC couldn't accommodate.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2091
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:08 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
While ATC was trying to offer the closest airport with capacity for a safe landing and crew were looking for a city hotel with infinity pool and best sushi, sure ATC couldn't accommodate.

Whether this is the case or not, it is not ATC's job to dictate the decisions for an aircraft in distress. ATC will gather the necessary information to best handle the emergency, provide the pilot with as much pertinent information as possible, and work to accommodate the pilot's requests to the greatest extent possible. This includes moving as many mountains as necessary to safely get them where they need to go. The only time ATC "can't accommodate" is if an unsafe condition exists related to the pilot's intentions, in which case they will be advised of that condition. But at the end of the day, an aircraft having declared an emergency is free to deviate from ATC clearances while advising of their actions to the greatest extent they are able. I have never seen a situation where ATC did not work to the fullest to accommodate a pilot's intentions, but perhaps things are different in India...
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:14 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
While ATC was trying to offer the closest airport with capacity for a safe landing and crew were looking for a city hotel with infinity pool and best sushi, sure ATC couldn't accommodate.


Oh seriously, you want people to take you seriously, have a logical arguement and don’t say ridiculous nonsense like that. It’s clear that you have a bias for who’s side your on without properly reading into things. It’s like if I would defend NAV Canada when they clearly screwed up (I’m quite fair when it comes to blaming the correct party at fault).
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
CFM565A1
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:19 pm

zeke wrote:
jetblueguy22 wrote:
You have no idea what you’re talking about so please stop pretending you do.


What he stated was correct, minimum fuel just tells ATC based on current delay information landing is expected with 30 minutes of fuel at that airport, and you have no other options. Landing with 30 minutes is perfectly legal, hence why it is not an emergency nor does ATC need to provide priority to land with anything above 30 minutes.


But was it?

He said : “Low fuel is not an emergency”

I don’t know if he’s trying to communicate that as saying Min. Fuel isn’t an emergency which then I’d agree or if he’s saying that you can’t use low fuel as a reason to declare an emergency.
Flown: C172-M/N/P/R/S , P2006T, PA-34-200T, Been on: ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER, MD-82/83, 757-200, 767-300, F28-4000.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:31 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
...Whether this is the case or not, it is not ATC's job to dictate the decisions for an aircraft in distress.


AC46 circled Mumbai skies between 16:10Z to 17:38Z, reached HYD at 18:40Z

The crew took 1 hr to decide on the first alternate. That maxed out on capacity
The crew contacted their ops center and decided on Hyderabad. Left for HYD 17:38Z

Whatever ATC was offering and crew rejected, it was never in danger.

Question is when was the first MAYDAY call made.

https://imgur.com/a/rrCSs
Image
 
mm320cap
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:35 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:42 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
...Whether this is the case or not, it is not ATC's job to dictate the decisions for an aircraft in distress.


AC46 circled Mumbai skies between 16:10Z to 17:38Z, reached HYD at 18:40Z

The crew took 1 hr to decide on the first alternate. That maxed out on capacity
The crew contacted their ops center and decided on Hyderabad. Left for HYD 17:38Z

Whatever ATC was offering and crew rejected, it was never in danger.

Question is when was the first MAYDAY call made.

https://imgur.com/a/rrCSs
Image


What the report says is that AC decided to divert to their alternate and was denied by ATC. After coordinating with dispatch on a new plan (which is smart. They have a ton of extra information and are also responsible for the flight) they decide to divert to HYD. ATC tries to put them in a hold. They declare MAYDAY, low fuel. That should have been the end of the discussion. When a plane declares a MAYDAY low fuel, you DON’T try to put them into a hold. Sounds like it took 3 more MAYDAY calls to finally convince ATC that they weren’t kidding and weren’t going to enter holding. Finally ATC relented and cleared them for the approach.

Your comments about the crew desiring an infinity pool are ridiculous. Having been doing this for 25 years, I can tell you that there are times when circumstances put you into a very tight box despite your best intententions. That’s when the MAYDAY call is supposed to be your lifeline. Not met with a clearance to hold. Thankfully, the crew was not bullied by ATC into actually holding.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:03 pm

mm320cap wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
...Whether this is the case or not, it is not ATC's job to dictate the decisions for an aircraft in distress.


AC46 circled Mumbai skies between 16:10Z to 17:38Z, reached HYD at 18:40Z

The crew took 1 hr to decide on the first alternate. That maxed out on capacity
The crew contacted their ops center and decided on Hyderabad. Left for HYD 17:38Z

Whatever ATC was offering and crew rejected, it was never in danger.

Question is when was the first MAYDAY call made.

https://imgur.com/a/rrCSs
Image


What the report says is that AC decided to divert to their alternate and was denied by ATC. After coordinating with dispatch on a new plan (which is smart. They have a ton of extra information and are also responsible for the flight) they decide to divert to HYD. ATC tries to put them in a hold. They declare MAYDAY, low fuel. That should have been the end of the discussion. When a plane declares a MAYDAY low fuel, you DON’T try to put them into a hold. Sounds like it took 3 more MAYDAY calls to finally convince ATC that they weren’t kidding and weren’t going to enter holding. Finally ATC relented and cleared them for the approach.

Your comments about the crew desiring an infinity pool are ridiculous. Having been doing this for 25 years, I can tell you that there are times when circumstances put you into a very tight box despite your best intententions. That’s when the MAYDAY call is supposed to be your lifeline. Not met with a clearance to hold. Thankfully, the crew was not bullied by ATC into actually holding.

I think dtw2hyd missing the point here. When an aircraft is low on fuel or in distress of any sort it is NOT the job of the ATC tell them what to do unless it is clearing them for an approach. They haven’t logged hours in those planes, they haven’t been trained to fly them, and they often don’t understand what’s going on in the cockpit. Most importanty though, they don’t know exactly how bad the situation is as they are not there looking at how little fuel the plane has.

I also can’t wrap my head around what they mean by being over capacity. If the plane is running out of fuel and has declared an emergency, surely they don’t have to be parked at a gate as soon as they land. Just getting the opportunity to safely land the plane in the situation and then having to park in the corner somewhere for a while is better far than running out of fuel in the air.
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
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:04 pm

mm320cap wrote:
What the report says is that AC decided to divert to their alternate and was denied by ATC. After coordinating with dispatch on a new plan (which is smart. They have a ton of extra information and are also responsible for the flight) they decide to divert to HYD. ATC tries to put them in a hold. They declare MAYDAY, low fuel. That should have been the end of the discussion. When a plane declares a MAYDAY low fuel, you DON’T try to put them into a hold. Sounds like it took 3 more MAYDAY calls to finally convince ATC that they weren’t kidding and weren’t going to enter holding. Finally ATC relented and cleared them for the approach.


Why don't you come up with a timeline to fit "all the above" between 16:10Z and 17:38Z. Also, give a timeline of four MAYDAY calls.

mm320cap wrote:
Your comments about the crew desiring an infinity pool are ridiculous. Having been doing this for 25 years, I can tell you that there are times when circumstances put you into a very tight box despite your best intententions. That’s when the MAYDAY call is supposed to be your lifeline. Not met with a clearance to hold. Thankfully, the crew was not bullied by ATC into actually holding.


Show me where they were put on hold en route Hyderabad.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2091
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:28 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
AC46 circled Mumbai skies between 16:10Z to 17:38Z, reached HYD at 18:40Z

The crew took 1 hr to decide on the first alternate. That maxed out on capacity
The crew contacted their ops center and decided on Hyderabad. Left for HYD 17:38Z

Whatever ATC was offering and crew rejected, it was never in danger.

Question is when was the first MAYDAY call made.

This isn't the point. When aircraft are in holding, ATC generally doesn't have much information to work from, and pilots tend to have even less. Sometimes aircraft are put into holding for a half turn under the assumption they could be there for 30+ minutes, other times they're put into holding for an hour when they were under the assumption they'd only make one or two turns. Controllers are often at the whim of the next facility, and it's rare for the controller putting aircraft into holding to have complete information to work with.

Just because they "took 1 HR to decide" doesn't mean the crew wasn't working on a game plan the entire time — I'm not a pilot, but I know that the vast majority of professional airmen are constantly thinking of alternatives. That's part of how all aviation professionals are trained from day one, pilots and ATC alike, to always have one, two, or even three backup plans.

The point is that when they reached the point of critical fuel, and that information was relayed to ATC, that should have changed the equation entirely. Now it's no longer a matter of how much longer the aircraft can continue to hold, it's a matter of which is the closest, most appropriate facility to handle them, and how they can best be expedited to that end. If they declared an emergency for low fuel, holding is no longer an option. ATC should have been coordinating with any nearby facilities to advise them of an inbound emergency, and it's their job to make room. Ignoring a declaration of emergency is completely unacceptable regardless of when it was declared, and from that point forward, any requests from the pilot should have been accommodated to the fullest extent possible. End of story.

mm320cap wrote:
Sounds like it took 3 more MAYDAY calls to finally convince ATC that they weren’t kidding and weren’t going to enter holding. Finally ATC relented and cleared them for the approach.

This is 100% unacceptable. It is not ATC's job to determine what a genuine emergency is, that's for investigators to determine when no one's life is in danger. Even if ATC believes they're completely full of crap, the controller is legally compelled to provide them with priority handling. What if the aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed because the pilot wasn't insistent enough? ATC just bought the blame because they wanted to see if it was really an emergency. This just isn't how things work from a professionalism standpoint, and people will die if they don't change that attitude.

mm320cap wrote:
Your comments about the crew desiring an infinity pool are ridiculous. Having been doing this for 25 years, I can tell you that there are times when circumstances put you into a very tight box despite your best intententions. That’s when the MAYDAY call is supposed to be your lifeline. Not met with a clearance to hold. Thankfully, the crew was not bullied by ATC into actually holding.

:checkmark: ATC and pilots aren't always the best of friends. Many choice words are said on both sides when that mic unkeys. However, when a pilot runs into trouble, everything changes. ATC can't set the aircraft down for the pilot, but we can do everything in our power to make the situation easier, and keep the pilot informed. I have never heard of a controller acting to purposely delay an aircraft in distress if it is against the pilot's desires, and if that's what happened here (which that appears to be the case), then this seriously needs to serve as a lesson to that controller and to the ATC agency so that this never happens again. You are 100% correct that declaring an emergency is a pilot's lifeline, and controllers are duty bound to use every procedure and method possible to bring the situation to a safe conclusion. Most ATC manuals the world over are purposely vague on the handling of emergencies to provide the controller flexibility to use their best judgment, but I've never a manual that gives flexibility to not honor the mayday call until the pilot seems like they really, really mean it.

767333ER wrote:
When an aircraft is low on fuel or in distress of any sort it is NOT the job of the ATC tell them what to do unless it is clearing them for an approach. They haven’t logged hours in those planes, they haven’t been trained to fly them, and they often don’t understand what’s going on in the cockpit. Most importanty though, they don’t know exactly how bad the situation is as they are not there looking at how little fuel the plane has.

I also can’t wrap my head around what they mean by being over capacity. If the plane is running out of fuel and has declared an emergency, surely they don’t have to be parked at a gate as soon as they land. Just getting the opportunity to safely land the plane in the situation and then having to park in the corner somewhere for a while is better far than running out of fuel in the air.

:checkmark: If there's a safe runway with ARFF, that's all that's needed in an emergency. Over capacity is an unacceptable reason to deny the pilot use of that airport. They don't need a gate, they just need tarmac. It's ATC's job to give them that tarmac, and the airport and airline can figure out the rest from there. In a fuel emergency, that airplane can sit on the ramp for six hours after they land for all ATC cares — the point is that they're no longer in distress.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:04 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
Just because they "took 1 HR to decide" doesn't mean the crew wasn't working on a game plan the entire time


So out of the 1hr 38min total hold, if AC crew took 1hr 20min decide on alternate airports, is the fuel wasted, ATC's fault?

atcsundevil wrote:
This is 100% unacceptable. It is not ATC's job to determine what a genuine emergency is, that's for investigators to determine when no one's life is in danger. Even if ATC believes they're completely full of crap, the controller is legally compelled to provide them with priority handling. What if the aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed because the pilot wasn't insistent enough? ATC just bought the blame because they wanted to see if it was really an emergency. This just isn't how things work from a professionalism standpoint, and people will die if they don't change that attitude.


If there was a MAYDAY call and ATC didn't acknowledge and help, that is an ICAO violation. If AC crew were circling Mumbai with a hope of getting in, it is their fault.

This is irrespective of what Simon says.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:24 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
So out of the 1hr 38min total hold, if AC crew took 1hr 20min decide on alternate airports, is the fuel wasted, ATC's fault?


It was nobody's fault up until the aircraft was told that the airport at Hyderabad couldn't take them and the aircraft declared a fuel emergency. Up until that point there was no emergency and we wouldn't be discussing any of this as the aircraft would have landed with final reserve fuel intact.

It should be noted that the sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident is the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose to apportion blame or liability.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:37 pm

Finn350 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
So out of the 1hr 38min total hold, if AC crew took 1hr 20min decide on alternate airports, is the fuel wasted, ATC's fault?


It was nobody's fault up until the aircraft was told that the airport at Hyderabad couldn't take them and the aircraft declared a fuel emergency. Up until that point there was no emergency and we wouldn't be discussing any of this as the aircraft would have landed with final reserve fuel intact.

It should be noted that the sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident is the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose to apportion blame or liability.


Use any playback site and watch it play out start Sep 19, 2017, 16:00 UTC over Mumbai. Compare AC46 with everyone else. With so many diversions on hand, should ATC help the planes ready to divert or the one circling without any clue?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2091
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:43 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
So out of the 1hr 38min total hold, if AC crew took 1hr 20min decide on alternate airports, is the fuel wasted, ATC's fault?

Huh? Holding is holding. It is what it is. It's no one's fault, and I never implied that it was. Besides, every flight has a prefiled alternate, and most long haul flights have two, so that decision was made before they ever left Canada. I was making the point to refute your assertion that the flight crew were making circles talking about where they were going to go to dinner that night, instead of planning for alternate courses of action. I'm sure they were in communication with dispatch on alternates, and they were working on options themselves. Like I said, ATC rarely has much information to work from in those situations, and holding for that length of time isn't typical in most places. I'm sure everyone thought they'd be coming out of the hold soon.

It would have only become ATC's fault if they purposely attempted to keep the aircraft in holding after declaring an emergency. I know of no country that would find that situation permissible.

dtw2hyd wrote:
If there was a MAYDAY call and ATC didn't acknowledge and help, that is an ICAO violation. If AC crew were circling Mumbai with a hope of getting in, it is their fault.

This is irrespective of what Simon says.

I'm not sure about the ICAO violation part — I can guarantee that it would violate whatever set of procedures Indian ATC utilize, which would be ICAO compliant. ICAO can't take disciplinary actions against the controller(s) involved for failing to follow procedure, but their ATC agency certainly can. Any "violation" would be up to the respective agency to determine, not ICAO.

I'm not sure why you insist on putting blame on the AC crew. I can't fault them for hoping they'll be able to land at their intended destination, because a diversion costs a lot of money, time, and passenger dissatisfaction, particularly with crew timeouts. They waited until they reached a point where enough fuel remained to reach their diversion plus reserves, which is an appropriate standard. Until I've seen proof otherwise, I can't understand how blame can be apportioned to the crew. Diversions don't necessarily receive priority, but any good controller should realize that the aircraft will be reaching a point of minimum fuel or emergency fuel if the aircraft is not diverted in a timely fashion.

Part of being a controller is having the foresight to recognize potential problems, and act to mitigate them before the situation becomes worse. "Work smart, not hard" is drilled into controllers early on at the academy, and allowing a situation to deteriorate into an emergency is not working smart. Continued holding of a diverting aircraft is asking for trouble, and keeping them in the hold (or trying to, anyway) after declaring an emergency is flat out reckless. As I said in my previous post, airport volume is not a valid excuse to contradict the intentions of a distress aircraft. To that end, the controller(s) involved seriously screwed up, and failure to act appropriately in response to a declaration of emergency gets people killed.

Finn350 wrote:
It was nobody's fault up until the aircraft was told that the airport at Hyderabad couldn't take them and the aircraft declared a fuel emergency. Up until that point there was no emergency and we wouldn't be discussing any of this as the aircraft would have landed with final reserve fuel intact.

It should be noted that the sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident is the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose to apportion blame or liability.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2091
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:01 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Use any playback site and watch it play out start Sep 19, 2017, 16:00 UTC over Mumbai. Compare AC46 with everyone else. With so many diversions on hand, should ATC help the planes ready to divert or the one circling without any clue?

Again, you're making a false assumption that the AC crew doesn't have a clue. If the situation is that deteriorated, ATC should have advised everyone in holding to expect a diversion, and ATC should have begun planning before the request even came. As I said before, it's about having foresight. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that an aircraft coming off a 15 hour flight and in holding for over an hour is probably going to have to divert, and that it'll probably run out of fuel at some point. Pilots can anticipate what ATC might do, but only if they're properly advised of the situation. If he was circling "without a clue", then that would at least indicate to me that the pilot was given the impression by the controller that clearance beyond the fix was imminent.

I am a controller, and I'm generally one to defend or at least attempt to explain controller actions in most situations, but everything I've seen and read here points to ATC having badly mishandled the situation. I've similarly seen nothing to indicate the flight crew are to blame to any extent. I am disappointed by your lack of objectivity, because from the evidence that has been reported, there is nothing to support your insistence that the crew contributed to a deterioration, and everything to support the belief that the controllers failed to recognize a developing situation, and failed to properly handle an emergency. I have never heard of a crew having to declare an emergency multiple times so that they would receive proper handling, because that simply should never happen.
 
N766UA
Posts: 7865
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:36 pm

Yeah, just for the record, emergency fuel is absolutely a thing and 100% a valid and respected emergency call (except in India, apparently.) If I’m imminently running out of gas, I’m landing, period.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:14 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
I am a controller, and I'm generally one to defend or at least attempt to explain controller actions in most situations,


So if you 50+ diversions on hand, would you help planes ready to go somewhere or a lurker. Lurking may give an impression to ATC they are carrying a lot of reserves.

Watch the playback of Mumbai airspace on planefinder from 9/19/17 16:00 UTC, the professionalism of AC46 crew is very clear.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:26 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
I am a controller, and I'm generally one to defend or at least attempt to explain controller actions in most situations,


So if you 50+ diversions on hand, would you help planes ready to go somewhere or a lurker. Lurking may give an impression to ATC they are carrying a lot of reserves.

Watch the playback of Mumbai airspace on planefinder from 9/19/17 16:00 UTC, the professionalism of AC46 crew is very clear.


You’re funny. You’d find any way possible to defend the Indian ATC here. I guess it would only be a 30 reply thread instead 80 without you so congrats on that.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2091
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:38 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
So if you 50+ diversions on hand, would you help planes ready to go somewhere or a lurker. Lurking may give an impression to ATC they are carrying a lot of reserves.

Controllers don't have "lurkers". If someone is lurking on your scope, then you aren't doing a proper scan. Controllers are taught to constantly scan data blocks, and not just to look for conflicts. You may be busy with other things, but if you aren't at least thinking somewhere in the back of your mind about what that guy in holding is going to need, then you're doing it wrong. Thinking multiple steps ahead planning for what every target on your scope will be doing is literally what controllers are paid to do. Just because the aircraft stayed in holding while others were diverting shouldn't give the controller the impression that he won't need anything, it should give the controller the impression that he's next!

If that controller had the impression that this aircraft, having come 15 hours from Canada and been in the hold for over an hour, still had a lot of reserves, then that is a complete failure to plan.
 
kennyomg
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:28 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:50 pm

dtw2hyd is playing a very disingenous game here, deflecting from the real issue by trying to assign blame for the fuel situation. All the while the actual issue at hand is this:

AC: MAYDAY fuel!
ATC: lalalala
AC: MAYDAY fuel!!
ATC: dum-di-dumm, dum-di-dummm
AC: MAYDAY fuel!!!
ATC: doo-bapppa-di-bappaa
AC: MAYDAY FUEL!!!!
ATC d'oh, ok...

Again, it doesn't matter whose fault the fuel situation is, what matters is that ATC ignored a mayday call 3 times. As far as the report says.
 
kotoka
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:57 pm

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:56 pm

Dtw_hyd does have a point. Of all the long hauls and heavies out there that night how is it that AC is the only one that got caught up in a situation like this?

If they hadn’t been holding for so long we wouldn’t have been having this conversation. Indian ATC may shoulder some of the blame but in situations like this (just like in an accident) it’s usually a series of factors at play.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6969
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

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

Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:51 pm

kotoka wrote:
Dtw_hyd does have a point. Of all the long hauls and heavies out there that night how is it that AC is the only one that got caught up in a situation like this?

If they hadn’t been holding for so long we wouldn’t have been having this conversation. Indian ATC may shoulder some of the blame but in situations like this (just like in an accident) it’s usually a series of factors at play.


There could be any reason, but the most likely would be that they burned less fuel than anticipated en-route and therefore still had decent reserves when they reached Mumbai. They could therefore hold for longer than other aircraft.

As has been said about five times now by different people, they held until they could land at their filed alternate with minimum reserves in tact. Therefore the Air Canada crew acted appropriately. The situation deteriorated when ATC refused to let them land at their filed alternate. That is on ATC, not Air Canada.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
ADXMatt
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:07 pm

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:40 am

zeke wrote:
Be interesting to see this report when it comes out for the decision making process for HYD.

There were a lot of options closer than HYD, they could have had PNQ, BQD, GOI, AMD, IDR. If they had the fuel to hold for and hour and HYD they also would have had fuel for BHO and NAG, and if they diverted earlier than holding for an hour they also had BLR and KHI. Just north of HYD there is also the domestic airport.



But I guess the first mistake was not continuing to their filed alternate and declaring an emergency, they are required to accept them at the filed alternate.
<-- First I've heard of this. Do you have a reference?

<An airliner can't just land at ANY airport. The airline has "approved" alternates that are in the airlines Ops Specs. These airports charts in the the airplanes database, Jepp coverage, ground handling contracts in place etc. - A diversion also must include the concurrence of the dispatcher who is jointly responsible for the operational control of the aircraft.

Now in an emergency of course you can do whatever is required to land safely.

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

The mention of KHI.... While that is a feasible location; politically you wouldn't want to make an Indian National go to Pakistan. That would become a PR nightmare because of how they would be treated in that country.
 
ZeeZoo
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:30 am

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:52 am

ADXMatt wrote:
politically you wouldn't want to make an Indian National go to Pakistan. That would become a PR nightmare because of how they would be treated in that country.

What? Indian visitors are generally treated very well in Pakistan and vice-versa.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1310
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:14 am

kotoka wrote:
Dtw_hyd does have a point. Of all the long hauls and heavies out there that night how is it that AC is the only one that got caught up in a situation like this?

If they hadn’t been holding for so long we wouldn’t have been having this conversation. Indian ATC may shoulder some of the blame but in situations like this (just like in an accident) it’s usually a series of factors at play.

I'm wondering what the thinking was at the first hold was after everyone else had left long ago. Perhaps the extra fuel they had loaded up gave them a false sense of security.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:28 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

AFAIK, low on fuel is not a valid reason to declare an emergency. That is the rule.


That seems like a pretty stupid rule...you know if you are low on fuel you probably should get preferential treatment to land/divert...


I don't understand dtw2hyd's comment..


He's made stuff up on previous threads. He's wrong on this rule. A fuel emergency is an emergency.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:42 am

ADXMatt wrote:

The mention of KHI.... While that is a feasible location; politically you wouldn't want to make an Indian National go to Pakistan. That would become a PR nightmare because of how they would be treated in that country.


Don't believe everything you read in the news. Numerous carriers to/from India have diverted into Pakistan. All without issue.

If I had to divert from BOM, KHI would be a viable option. It has a long runway. The airport is well equipped with navaids, ground handling and emergency eq. Not to mention it has far less traffic and usually better weather than most Indian airports.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11443
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 08, 2017 8:50 am

mm320cap wrote:
What the report says is that AC decided to divert to their alternate and was denied by ATC. After coordinating with dispatch on a new plan (which is smart. They have a ton of extra information and are also responsible for the flight) they decide to divert to HYD. ATC tries to put them in a hold. They declare MAYDAY, low fuel. That should have been the end of the discussion. When a plane declares a MAYDAY low fuel, you DON’T try to put them into a hold. Sounds like it took 3 more MAYDAY calls to finally convince ATC that they weren’t kidding and weren’t going to enter holding. Finally ATC relented and cleared them for the approach.

Your comments about the crew desiring an infinity pool are ridiculous. Having been doing this for 25 years, I can tell you that there are times when circumstances put you into a very tight box despite your best intententions. That’s when the MAYDAY call is supposed to be your lifeline. Not met with a clearance to hold. Thankfully, the crew was not bullied by ATC into actually holding.


AC were on final for landing at BOM when they went around at about 4000 ft because the aircraft infromt of them was disabled on the runway. The climbed back up and held for around for 1:40 before diverting, their alternate would have been available if they had gone there straight away. As far as I know their filed alternate was AMD which would be a 45 minute trip. The basically held for twice the time of the diversion before diverting. 60+ other aircraft diverted.

I too have been doing this for a along time. If I know of an aircraft disabled on the runway, I am not hanging around to box myself into a corner. I getting out of there, land get some more gas on and then make a plan to return. The longer you wait for your diversion the longer you wait at the alternate to get gas and ground equipment etc.

Mayday fuel means 30 minutes of gas, not zero. My understanding there was a ground incident at HYD that momentarily stopped all arrivals there. I have said a number of times I would like to see the decision making process for this at the end of a ULH sector.

ADXMatt wrote:
<-- First I've heard of this. Do you have a reference?

<An airliner can't just land at ANY airport. The airline has "approved" alternates that are in the airlines Ops Specs. These airports charts in the the airplanes database, Jepp coverage, ground handling contracts in place etc. - A diversion also must include the concurrence of the dispatcher who is jointly responsible for the operational control of the aircraft.

Now in an emergency of course you can do whatever is required to land safely.

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

The mention of KHI.... While that is a feasible location; politically you wouldn't want to make an Indian National go to Pakistan. That would become a PR nightmare because of how they would be treated in that country.


I dont have a reference at hand regarding the alternates, it is something I chased up years ago with our international affairs office when the rules for ETOPS ERA changed and only required to plan to land with 15 minutes of fuel.

Sounds like you are used to FAA rules, under ICAO there is no joint operational control, it is up to the PIC. In terms of alternates, what you are saying is correct at the planning stage, a diversion is not a planned event (planned destination BOM planned alternate AMD) . There is no ICAO requirement for a GHA at alternate or diversion airports. Under ICAO Ops Spec is a ETOPS term regarding the operational area ETOIPS can be undertaken, and the rule times/distances, the controlling document is the operations manual. We have an FAA OpsSpec for our FAR Part 129 operations which refers to our operations manual.

For all the years I have flown into BOM, I have never flown into 14/32. 32 has no precision approach, it has a hill around 1000 ft about 4 miles from the airport, we consider it such a threat it is a captains only approach.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:30 pm

It would be interesting to know if they landed above reserve. It is difficult to parse these carefully crafted statements if there was a real fuel emergency (or) just declared MAYDAY FUEL to get into HYD.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:51 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
It would be interesting to know if they landed above reserve. It is difficult to parse these carefully crafted statements if there was a real fuel emergency (or) just declared MAYDAY FUEL to get into HYD.


I think it is pretty clear they had a real fuel emergency. From the original article:

The crew then chose to divert a second time to Hyderabad, after consulting with the carrier's operations centre, only to be informed by air traffic control en route that Hyderabad had already reached maximum capacity and could not handle the flight.

According to the bulletin Air Canada informed investigators that air traffic control "continued trying to divert the flight or attempted to place it in another hold", adding that the crew had to declare a Mayday over the aircraft's low-fuel situation four times before being cleared for a straight-in approach to Hyderabad's runway 09L.


I think your patriotism, unending defense of Indian ATC and desire to push blame on the Air Canada flight crew is very disrespectful.

Here is some additional information


Canadian transport regulator has raised the issue with the Indian aviation authorities.

"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," Air Canada spokesperson Angela Mah said in an e-mail statement to PTI.


We have differing opinions from Indian and Canadian officials


The spokesperson also said the regulator Transport Canada is reviewing the Mumbai airport delay with Indian authorities.

"Air Canada followed all correct procedures and it is now a matter for Indian and Canadian aviation authorities," the spokesperson said.

An Air Traffic Control (ATC) official, however, said the aerodromes where the flights were being diverted were also choking and it was getting increasingly difficult to accommodate more and more flights.

"The ATC did everything that was required for a safe landing of the aircraft," the official said, when asked about Air Canada's claims.


https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/not-rec ... da-1759976
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:39 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think it is pretty clear they had a real fuel emergency. From the original article:

The crew then chose to divert a second time to Hyderabad, after consulting with the carrier's operations centre, only to be informed by air traffic control en route that Hyderabad had already reached maximum capacity and could not handle the flight.

According to the bulletin Air Canada informed investigators that air traffic control "continued trying to divert the flight or attempted to place it in another hold", adding that the crew had to declare a Mayday over the aircraft's low-fuel situation four times before being cleared for a straight-in approach to Hyderabad's runway 09L.


I think your patriotism, unending defense of Indian ATC and desire to push blame on the Air Canada flight crew is very disrespectful.

Here is some additional information


Canadian transport regulator has raised the issue with the Indian aviation authorities.

"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," Air Canada spokesperson Angela Mah said in an e-mail statement to PTI.


We have differing opinions from Indian and Canadian officials


The spokesperson also said the regulator Transport Canada is reviewing the Mumbai airport delay with Indian authorities.

"Air Canada followed all correct procedures and it is now a matter for Indian and Canadian aviation authorities," the spokesperson said.

An Air Traffic Control (ATC) official, however, said the aerodromes where the flights were being diverted were also choking and it was getting increasingly difficult to accommodate more and more flights.

"The ATC did everything that was required for a safe landing of the aircraft," the official said, when asked about Air Canada's claims.


https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/not-rec ... da-1759976


I think it is pretty clear they had a real fuel emergency

If this was a real emergency, this whole thing was their own making.

And crew didn't know there was plane stuck in the mud at the end of only runway useable, other runway had crosswinds. Did they turn off their radios?

The crew then chose to divert a second time to Hyderabad

Reads like they went to the first alternate airport and ATC again diverted to Hyderabad. They didn't go anywhere, just circling Mumbai.

air traffic control "continued trying to divert the flight or attempted to place it in another hold", adding that the crew had to declare a Mayday over the aircraft's low-fuel situation four times before being cleared for a straight-in approach to Hyderabad's runway 09L


When there are twenty planes lined up to land standard approach from 27L, how do you expect the airport to accommodate 9R? 9L/27R is actually a Taxiway used as Runway only when the main runway 27L/9R is under maintenance.

I think your patriotism, unending defense of Indian ATC and desire to push blame on the Air Canada flight crew is very disrespectful.

I am just a third party, your comment is irrelevant. My only curiosity is how could a crew screw up bad. Even all those Indian pilots with fake licenses handled very well.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:16 pm

I probably shouldn't have taken the bait. As they teach you in ground school, emergencies are almost always a series of events with multiple causes.
 
Mir
Posts: 19383
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:35 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Compare AC46 with everyone else. With so many diversions on hand, should ATC help the planes ready to divert or the one circling without any clue?


They should help all of them. Why is this even a question?
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:42 pm

Mir wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Compare AC46 with everyone else. With so many diversions on hand, should ATC help the planes ready to divert or the one circling without any clue?


They should help all of them. Why is this even a question?


Because he’d apparently prefer ATC cause an accident and let him hold his pretend moral high ground than get the planes landed.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:30 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:

I am just a third party, your comment is irrelevant. My only curiosity is how could a crew screw up bad. Even all those Indian pilots with fake licenses handled very well.


Your comments are just a bunch of uninformed revisionist history, everyone knows it and that’s out have some bias it’s quite clear. You can keep convincing yourself you aren’t but any rational person could collect your comments and see that they’re just finger pointing and armchairing.
Flown: C172-M/N/P/R/S , P2006T, PA-34-200T, Been on: ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER, MD-82/83, 757-200, 767-300, F28-4000.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4883
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:49 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:

Your comments are just a bunch of uninformed revisionist history, everyone knows it and that’s out have some bias it’s quite clear. You can keep convincing yourself you aren’t but any rational person could collect your comments and see that they’re just finger pointing and armchairing.


So how is one side view is biased and another side view is balanced?

60+ diversions, we don't know how many others were really low on fuel. Just because AC complained to mommy and mommy published a bulletin verbatim from the log book, this gets high priority.

Do you want to other planes to go down while accommodating this manufactured emergency?

If you have any evidence to prove otherwise present it

SFOtoORD wrote:

Because he’d apparently prefer ATC cause an accident and let him hold his pretend moral high ground than get the planes landed.


HYD went through the trouble of closing very busy main runway and activated taxiway as a runway to give a straight approach.

What more they need.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:17 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:

Your comments are just a bunch of uninformed revisionist history, everyone knows it and that’s out have some bias it’s quite clear. You can keep convincing yourself you aren’t but any rational person could collect your comments and see that they’re just finger pointing and armchairing.


So how is one side view is biased and another side view is balanced?

60+ diversions, we don't know how many others were really low on fuel. Just because AC complained to mommy and mommy published a bulletin verbatim from the log book, this gets high priority.

Do you want to other planes to go down while accommodating this manufactured emergency?

If you have any evidence to prove otherwise present it

SFOtoORD wrote:

Because he’d apparently prefer ATC cause an accident and let him hold his pretend moral high ground than get the planes landed.


HYD went through the trouble of closing very busy main runway and activated taxiway as a runway to give a straight approach.

What more they need.



The fact is when an emergency is declared, everything you are ragging on about goes out the window period. At the time of the event, it’s about dealing with that emergency period. Reports are filed after the fact about who did what an why the emergency was necessary... point is with you is that you ask me to bring in fact when you go on and on pointing fingers about blame... here’s the facts:

1) An AC 787-9 put declared an emergency which means they needed priority.
2) the ATC did not provide them with the handling they expected when declaring an emergency (it’s their duty to do so because they aren’t in the position to play 20 questions with the crew like you’re doing right now.
3) once the plane is safely on the ground, then they could investigate and give their side of the story.

There is no place for ATC to do what they did regardless if AC put themselves in that poor situation or not.
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.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:51 pm

DTW2HYD,

Have you actually flown a plane into VABB during the monsoon as crew? If you have, you should be aware of the typical (pun intended) rain dance that goes on. Placed into the hold, ceiling and visibility is more than reasonable, but the EFC is rarely given or accurate. Finally, after a few descents, out of the hold...now comes the real mess—being vectored around in circles for a long time, often 30 nm from the field before cleared. The whole time the delay is mystery. It’s basically a one runway operation unless on 14, but still one runway as the can’t do similtaneous ops on 14 and either 09 or 27.

I was once at the OM, cleared for ILS 27 in heavy rain and turbulence, when “approach clearance cancelled, enter the hold” at the marker after 45 minutes of aimless vectors, no idea what happened. After I turned back inbound, the plane now cleaned up at holding speed, trying save fuel, 1 mike from the OM, “cleared ILS 27”. Throw the gear and flaps and try to intercept the g/s. I wasn’t refusing the approach because who knows what problems that would cause for following traffic. All over someone having to go to the end and 180to taxi to an exit.

It’s a zoo on good days, let alone bad weather and multiple planes all trying to get in with no idea of the delay times and status of alternates. You really don’t want to divert as it will put the crew into rest and the pax in uncertainty as to immigration and accommodations, the reported weather is good enough to be assured of landing, if only the radar controller would just clear you for the approach.

The place is an outdated traffic jam.

GF
 
User avatar
SXI899
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:02 pm

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

Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:39 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
HYD went through the trouble of closing very busy main runway and activated taxiway as a runway to give a straight approach.

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

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