http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/econ ... rt-typhoon

A KLM 747 has landed in HKG right in the middle of Hato typhoon when all other flights have chosen to divert. There is an ongoing debate in HK social media on whether it was great and rational airmanship (why divert when the conditions are within the airplane's limits) or dangerous foolhardiness.

Wind for their arrival was down the runway, and they happened to make their approach between the passing heavy rain. Another airline approached with a 787 after KLM and then diverted to XMN as they conditions were not favourable for their approach.

That's right, the wind was strong (45 gusting 60 knots) but not lateral.

It was great airmanship Dutch airline pilot's are used to heavy winds. This was classified as just a bit windy, as they said in the Dutch newspaper

zeke wrote:

Wind for their arrival was down the runway, and they happened to make their approach between the passing heavy rain. Another airline approached with a 787 after KLM and then diverted to XMN as they conditions were not favourable for their approach.

So it was great airmanship combined with a bit of luck!

Kudos to them for using the opportunity to land and avoid their passengers the hassle of a diversion.

Nice landing for the passengers, only to be deplaned with open air stairs in the middle of a typhoon. !!
No yet bridge available ??

Any chance of a video? Worth asking!

I feel bad for all the workers on the ground required for this airplane to arrive. In typhoon conditions a 747 is going to send a dozen people onto the ramp for baggage, maintenance, fuel, etc. Sometimes the weather conditions are acceptable for the plane to land, but the people aren't able to either get to work or safely work in hose conditions. There are over 25 people required to support a 747 from various disciplines.

The fact that an aircraft lands doesn't mean it has to be handled immediately. If the ground staff or the aviation authorities deem it unsafe to handle the aircraft they can just wait until they are allowed to work on the aircraft. This is cheaper then diverting to another airport and all the extra costs involved I would assume.

This is really a non issue in my opinion.

A388

thaiflyer wrote:

Nice landing for the passengers, only to be deplaned with open air stairs in the middle of a typhoon. !!
No yet bridge available ??

Wind speed is over the limit so no jetbridge.

I feel for the ground personnel that had to work this flight. Coming out in the middle of the storm(especially a Signal 10 Typhoon) is extremely unsafe.

Immigration staff were not in the terminal either, public transport was shut down.

A388 wrote:

The fact that an aircraft lands doesn't mean it has to be handled immediately. If the ground staff or the aviation authorities deem it unsafe to handle the aircraft they can just wait until they are allowed to work on the aircraft. This is cheaper then diverting to another airport and all the extra costs involved I would assume.

This is really a non issue in my opinion.

A388

It is an issue in the United States with tarmac delay rules that don't apply in this case. I have been out on the ramp in absolutely terrible weather conditions wondering why I was there when almost every airline had canceled operations but a few kept going. I watched an international flight depart with absolutely nothing in the cargo holds because there were no avaiable rampers working due to the weather. Sometimes a diversion is the right thing to do.

My personal opinion is that airlines need to take care of their employees and not expect them to work in a typhoon like this one. It was the highest warning level with trains shutdown, schools and businesses closed, etc.

workhorse wrote:

There is an ongoing debate in HK social media on whether it was great and rational airmanship (why divert when the conditions are within the airplane's limits) or dangerous foolhardiness.

Oh good. All the social media experts can weigh in.

All that was needed was a gust or windshear at the wrong moment and this was the next CI642. KLM has forgotten the lessons of Tenerife, it seems, and impatience rules the day once more. Prudence would have recommended diverting elsewhere. The pax were going to be hugely inconvenienced regardless, with no public transport, airport essentially shut down and full of stranded pax, and hotels likely in chaos too. Far better to arrive a day late and safely than to take this unnecessary risk.

vr-hkg wrote:

All that was needed was a gust or windshear at the wrong moment and this was the next CI642. KLM has forgotten the lessons of Tenerife, it seems, and impatience rules the day once more. Prudence would have recommended diverting elsewhere. The pax were going to be hugely inconvenienced regardless, with no public transport, airport essentially shut down and full of stranded pax, and hotels likely in chaos too. Far better to arrive a day late and safely than to take this unnecessary risk.

Nah, KLM simply has pilots who still know how to fly rather than just pushing right buttons on right order and letting autopilot handle everything.

Exactly! These guys are 'old school' and not gonna let some little wind or a computer tell them different. Thank God for these types who use their brain to think and at least try.

"and at least try" -- that says it all, really. And what happens when you try but fail? Why take an unnecessary risk which EVERY SINGLE other flight crew could see was not worth making, when it isn't in the interest of the pax, who will be no less inconvenienced even if your flight arrives on time because the entire town is shut down?

vr-hkg wrote:

All that was needed was a gust or windshear at the wrong moment and this was the next CI642. KLM has forgotten the lessons of Tenerife, it seems, and impatience rules the day once more. Prudence would have recommended diverting elsewhere. The pax were going to be hugely inconvenienced regardless, with no public transport, airport essentially shut down and full of stranded pax, and hotels likely in chaos too. Far better to arrive a day late and safely than to take this unnecessary risk.

KLM has one of the highest safety standards in the aviation industry.
If the pilots think that it was safe to land i fully accept that.
The armchair pilots know it better again without any competence or knowledge as usual.

vr-hkg wrote:

"and at least try" -- that says it all, really. And what happens when you try but fail? Why take an unnecessary risk which EVERY SINGLE other flight crew could see was not worth making, when it isn't in the interest of the pax, who will be no less inconvenienced even if your flight arrives on time because the entire town is shut down?

The flight crew operations manual and airplane flight manual clearly define what conditions the airplane can land in. I am not questioning that and have confidence that the crew followed the proper procedures. EASA would be all over them if they didn't. I don't question the safety. Winds probably were within the limits when the crew and dispatch had to make a decision. In the event of windshear or other conditions, they can do a go around and divert. There are airports around the world where it is common for weather related go arounds and AMS is one of them.

What I question is the prudence of landing under a signal 10 warning in a typhoon when the airport staff and transportation infrastructure is not fully functional. The runway may be safe, but then what happens? The return flight to AMS was delayed 14 hours.

JetBlue early on in their existence learned the consequences of flying into airports where the the runway was in an acceptable condition but the airport terminal and staffing were not prepared to handle all of the arrivals and that is partially why we have tarmac delay rules in the United States. If the airlines make decisions that are not prudent regarding airport conditions then the regulatory authorities will step in. I wasn't in HKG, so I don't know what conditions existed, but if everyone else is diverting then that more than likely is the prudent decision.

Hey. At least the runway was clear this time.

pvjin wrote:

vr-hkg wrote:

All that was needed was a gust or windshear at the wrong moment and this was the next CI642. KLM has forgotten the lessons of Tenerife, it seems, and impatience rules the day once more. Prudence would have recommended diverting elsewhere. The pax were going to be hugely inconvenienced regardless, with no public transport, airport essentially shut down and full of stranded pax, and hotels likely in chaos too. Far better to arrive a day late and safely than to take this unnecessary risk.

Nah, KLM simply has pilots who still know how to fly rather than just pushing right buttons on right order and letting autopilot handle everything.

There's a good chance that this was an autoland, but thank you for your informed, unbiased and level-headed input as usual.

vr-hkg wrote:

All that was needed was a gust or windshear at the wrong moment and this was the next CI642. KLM has forgotten the lessons of Tenerife, it seems, and impatience rules the day once more. Prudence would have recommended diverting elsewhere. The pax were going to be hugely inconvenienced regardless, with no public transport, airport essentially shut down and full of stranded pax, and hotels likely in chaos too. Far better to arrive a day late and safely than to take this unnecessary risk.

Are you a pilot?

vr-hkg wrote:

"and at least try" -- that says it all, really. And what happens when you try but fail?

And what happens when you try but fail? Simple, you go around. Really, airmanship 101.
Then try another approach, or divert, whichever is most appropriate to the person upfront trained and paid to make just these decisions.

I have 1000 times more faith in these guys upfront, having access to all the information required to make just these types of decisions, rather then any social media nerd, bashing these pilots based on two isolated parameters, thank you very much.

This is the time when these 200000 E paid folks earn every penny worth.

Rgds,
PW100

I mean, they still could go around if it didn't work out.

I've flown every variant of the 744 & 777 amongst many others - 744p,combi,freighter & special freighter. 772,773,77L,77F,77W

I can tell you that if the wx was within the FCOM & Co limits - I would take a look with a healthy expectation of a GA.

They took a look - and flew the approach within limits - felt good, looked good - and landed successfully.

Boeing did the testing - KLM been in biz a long time - they know what's acceptable.

Job done.

Good decision by the pilots in my opinion, if they tought it was safe to land. Much less hassle for the passengers. And even if they had to wait a couple of hours in the terminal or in the plane before they could collect their bags and go trough costums. It is most likely to be a lot shorter than diverting.

Francoflier wrote:

There's a good chance that this was an autoland, but thank you for your informed, unbiased and level-headed input as usual.

I don't really care whether it was autoland or not, the point was that KLM pilots sure know better than a.net armchair experts.

PW100 wrote:

vr-hkg wrote:

"and at least try" -- that says it all, really. And what happens when you try but fail?

And what happens when you try but fail? Simple, you go around. Really, airmanship 101.
Then try another approach, or divert, whichever is most appropriate to the person upfront trained and paid to make just these decisions.

I have 1000 times more faith in these guys upfront, having access to all the information required to make just these types of decisions, rather then any social media nerd, bashing these pilots based on two isolated parameters, thank you very much.

This is the time when these 200000 E paid folks earn every penny worth.

Rgds,
PW100

I had a flight with an SQ A333 to Taipei and we landed when a Cat 1 Typhoon was at its closest to the airport. First attempt was a go around due to cross wind exceeding limits (the only go around I ever experienced) while the second attempt was fine. Anything smaller than A330s was cancelled but there were landings of other A330s and a CI 747 although there were also cancelled wide-body flights. The actual landing was actually much smoother than I expected and even the go around had nothing unusual except the go around itself. The most hairy part was the drive from the airport to the hotel.

The plane landed alright, then the passengers have to walk the ramp, risking ground crews' life to serve the plane.

Just for everyone info, the wind was so strong it torn part of the roof of HAECO's hangar away.

YLWbased

As a passenger on this plane I can say the descent was bumpy but not extreme and the landing was smooth (I have had far worse in Perth, Australia); admittedly though I was near the front of the plane, that may have improved the experience
And yes credit to the ground staff who went outside to service plane, it was done sensibly though as they came out but stopped and waited to the conditions calmed down; hence the reason there was an hour wait to disembark the aircraft

HKG is my home port. I fly in and out of here all the time. Would I have done that approach in those conditions? Maybe but I'm leaning towards no. Cathay had cancelled all operations at HKG. No aircraft had landed for a couple of hours before the KLM and non would land for a while after. They had the airspace to themselves. Wind on base leg was 110kts. On finals they reported the headwind at 70kts all the way down to touchdown. They also said that it was fairly smooth above 1000ft and then bumpy below 1000. Bumpy conditions in the middle of a typhoon with a 70kt headwind during conditions where (for us) it is above company limits for opening aircraft doors etc. Would I have continued? The "push-on" factor is strong in pilots all over the world. It leads to accidents although many times it doesn't.

This guy did a successful landing in the middle of one of the worst typhoons to hit HK in many years (He didn't know that at the time though). Was he a hero or foolhardly and lucky? Who knows but many of my colleagues are not full of praise.

CX Flyboy wrote:

HKG is my home port. I fly in and out of here all the time. Would I have done that approach in those conditions? Maybe but I'm leaning towards no. Cathay had cancelled all operations at HKG. No aircraft had landed for a couple of hours before the KLM and non would land for a while after. They had the airspace to themselves. Wind on base leg was 110kts. On finals they reported the headwind at 70kts all the way down to touchdown. They also said that it was fairly smooth above 1000ft and then bumpy below 1000. Bumpy conditions in the middle of a typhoon with a 70kt headwind during conditions where (for us) it is above company limits for opening aircraft doors etc. Would I have continued? The "push-on" factor is strong in pilots all over the world. It leads to accidents although many times it doesn't.

This guy did a successful landing in the middle of one of the worst typhoons to hit HK in many years (He didn't know that at the time though). Was he a hero or foolhardly and lucky? Who knows but many of my colleagues are not full of praise.

CX cancelled all flights not only due to the safety issue, they intend to save their resources (planes and crews in HKG) to resume operations after the Typhoon in a more organized way,
rather then keeping their crews and passangers onbaord the planes, hoping they can get into the gap and takeoff....and turnout crews are time-out and passangers are not happy and the chain effect to the following days.

pvjin wrote:

Nah, KLM simply has pilots who still know how to fly rather than just pushing right buttons on right order and letting autopilot handle everything.

The ATIS at the time they landed had a microburst alert on it as well as significant windshear. HKG has terrain around it and in strong winds there can be significant mechanical turbulence. Because of this HKIA has LADIR based microburst and windshear detection equipment which generates warning which appear on the ATIS.

This is very different to the strong winds you can get at AMS where it is mainly flat with little terrain around, those winds tend to steady on approach. The mechanical turbulence you get in HKG results in wind that varies significantly in direction and speed.

From an approach procedure design point of view I doubt they were within design parameters with over 100 kts of tailwind on the base leg.

In simple terms by definition a microburst exceeds the performance of any airliner. Our company procedures do not permit an approach or takeoff with a microburst.

The winds were strong at the time, strong enough to blow the boom off a high rise crane. Even trying to drive to the airport was difficult with debris on the roads and trees blown over. Many buildings were moving in the wind like they were experiencing an earthquake.

I would suggest if you were to outline the scenario in a CRM class at KLM you would get a large number of people saying it would be more prudent not to attempt an approach. Ethiopian also attempted to land in a 787 and went around at about 1000 ft on approach.

In short my view is this was more of a situation of good luck with timing rather than exceptional skills.

Francoflier wrote:

pvjin wrote:

vr-hkg wrote:

All that was needed was a gust or windshear at the wrong moment and this was the next CI642. KLM has forgotten the lessons of Tenerife, it seems, and impatience rules the day once more. Prudence would have recommended diverting elsewhere. The pax were going to be hugely inconvenienced regardless, with no public transport, airport essentially shut down and full of stranded pax, and hotels likely in chaos too. Far better to arrive a day late and safely than to take this unnecessary risk.

Nah, KLM simply has pilots who still know how to fly rather than just pushing right buttons on right order and letting autopilot handle everything.

There's a good chance that this was an autoland, but thank you for your informed, unbiased and level-headed input as usual.

An autoland at the limits of the airplane's acceptable conditions? There is no way this was an autoland. Don't insult other people if you are also not informed.

Francoflier wrote:

pvjin wrote:

vr-hkg wrote:

All that was needed was a gust or windshear at the wrong moment and this was the next CI642. KLM has forgotten the lessons of Tenerife, it seems, and impatience rules the day once more. Prudence would have recommended diverting elsewhere. The pax were going to be hugely inconvenienced regardless, with no public transport, airport essentially shut down and full of stranded pax, and hotels likely in chaos too. Far better to arrive a day late and safely than to take this unnecessary risk.

Nah, KLM simply has pilots who still know how to fly rather than just pushing right buttons on right order and letting autopilot handle everything.

There's a good chance that this was an autoland, but thank you for your informed, unbiased and level-headed input as usual.

Snowball's chance in hell.

Autoland is usually limited to 5 knots of wind.

Varsity1 wrote:

Autoland is usually limited to 5 knots of wind.

Autoland limits

Headwind (HW) Tailwind (TW) Crosswind (XW)

737NG HW 25 kts TW 15 kts XW 20 kts
747 HW 25 kts TW 15 kts XW 25 kts
757 HW 25 kts TW 10 kts XW 25 kts
767 HW 25 kts TW 10 kts XW 25 kts
777 HW 25 kts TW 15 kts XW 25 kts
787 HW 25 kts TW 15 kts XW 25 kts
A330 HW 35 kts, TW 10 kts, XW 20 kts
A340 HW 35 kts, TW 10 kts, XW 20 kts
A350 HW 40 kts TW 15 kts XW 25 kts

zeke wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Autoland is usually limited to 5 knots of wind.

Autoland limits

Headwind (HW) Tailwind (TW) Crosswind (XW)

737NG HW 25 kts TW 15 kts XW 20 kts
747 HW 25 kts TW 15 kts XW 25 kts
757 HW 25 kts TW 10 kts XW 25 kts
767 HW 25 kts TW 10 kts XW 25 kts
777 HW 25 kts TW 15 kts XW 25 kts
787 HW 25 kts TW 15 kts XW 25 kts
A330 HW 35 kts, TW 10 kts, XW 20 kts
A340 HW 35 kts, TW 10 kts, XW 20 kts
A350 HW 40 kts TW 15 kts XW 25 kts

Those require a dry visual from the VDP. A real approach has significantly less tolerance. The 737 for example has a limit of 10 knots if RvR is less than 1000ft and 5 knots if the runway is contaminated.

Autoland can be finicky, they plane will often land in the crab with a huge side load. If winds are gusty, forget about it.

So let me ask a question, please. That is, before y'all roast the guys on the deck making their decisions about whether to land, or not.

I seem to recall, the ICAO fuel reserve requirement is 30 minutes, yes? (I'm dragging that from deep memory. Might be wrong, yes?)

What have we got for alternate airfields to that airfield in Hong Kong?

And was that typhoon affecting conditions at any of those alternates?

Could it be those guys did a quick calculation and realized that with the nasty weather they would be cutting it too close if they were to go to an alternate?

By the way, I have not properly briefed myself on this issue, so if there were "gals" on the flight deck, I apologize.

Varsity1 wrote:

Those require a dry visual from the VDP. A real approach has significantly less tolerance. The 737 for example has a limit of 10 knots if RvR is less than 1000ft and 5 knots if the runway is contaminated.

Not according to the Boeing FCOM.

Reduction of cross wind limits for contamination is not an autoland limit, it is due to the RCAM assessment which is something completely different, it applies to both manual landings and autolands.

Varsity1 wrote:

Autoland can be finicky, they plane will often land in the crab with a huge side load. If winds are gusty, forget about it.

You can autoland with gusts, I am not a flight sim pilot, I actually fly wide-bodies into HKG,

CH47A wrote:

What have we got for alternate airfields to that airfield in Hong Kong?

MFM, SZX, CAN, XMN, KHH, TPE

CH47A wrote:

And was that typhoon affecting conditions at any of those alternates?

Yes MFM, SZX, CAN

CH47A wrote:

Could it be those guys did a quick calculation and realized that with the nasty weather they would be cutting it too close if they were to go to an alternate?

The forecast was not suitable for MFM, SZX, or CAN before they departed so they should have had an alternate which was suitable on their flight plan.

They landed around 0230Z the forecast for MFM at the departure time was
TEMPO 2220/2302 35025G40KT 2000 +SHRA FEW010CB SCT020
BECMG 2302/2304 05035KT
TEMPO 2302/2310 09045G60KT 1400 +SHRA FEW010CB SCT020 BKN040

So it was indicating the eye of the typhoon would pass MFM (around 25 nm from HKG) between 0200 to 0400 (BECMG 2302/2304 05035KT). with significant Wx either side of that.

In conditions like this we would carry alternates like MNL, BKK and TPE plus an hours holding fuel. You dont want to divert into mainland China if you can help it. Most airlines just suspended operations into the airports until the conditions were forecast to be suitable.

b747400erf wrote:

An autoland at the limits of the airplane's acceptable conditions? There is no way this was an autoland. Don't insult other people if you are also not informed.

Varsity1 wrote:

Snowball's chance in hell.

Autoland is usually limited to 5 knots of wind.

Varsity1 wrote:

Those require a dry visual from the VDP. A real approach has significantly less tolerance. The 737 for example has a limit of 10 knots if RvR is less than 1000ft and 5 knots if the runway is contaminated.

Autoland can be finicky, they plane will often land in the crab with a huge side load. If winds are gusty, forget about it.

Seriously? The 777's auto flight system is immensely capable, much more so than the 737. It can, with runway condition "Good" or better (i.e. wet but no standing water), autoland up to the aircraft limit (for our company) of 38 knots; I've seen it done in previous horrific weather in HKG, it does a great job. The limit is 25 knots, as Zeke posted, when landing is predicated on autoland operations, i.e. LVO is in force. As long as you're above CAT I minima, which they were, you're all good to do an autoland with more wind. The lowest crosswind limit, landing on a "Poor" / Braking action 1 runway is 15 knots.

I would be surprised if the KLM flight's landing wasn't an autoland. In an aircraft with a good enough system, at the end of a long haul flight (and middle of the night for the crew's European body clock), it's the sensible thing to do when the weather is that bad.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I feel bad for all the workers on the ground required for this airplane to arrive. In typhoon conditions a 747 is going to send a dozen people onto the ramp for baggage, maintenance, fuel, etc. Sometimes the weather conditions are acceptable for the plane to land, but the people aren't able to either get to work or safely work in hose conditions. There are over 25 people required to support a 747 from various disciplines.

Here in India when a 747 arrives, 5 people operate it on ground, but when a 737 arrives theres like 50 people on ground which i found very funny lol

Francoflier wrote:

pvjin wrote:

vr-hkg wrote:

All that was needed was a gust or windshear at the wrong moment and this was the next CI642. KLM has forgotten the lessons of Tenerife, it seems, and impatience rules the day once more. Prudence would have recommended diverting elsewhere. The pax were going to be hugely inconvenienced regardless, with no public transport, airport essentially shut down and full of stranded pax, and hotels likely in chaos too. Far better to arrive a day late and safely than to take this unnecessary risk.

Nah, KLM simply has pilots who still know how to fly rather than just pushing right buttons on right order and letting autopilot handle everything.

There's a good chance that this was an autoland, but thank you for your informed, unbiased and level-headed input as usual.

AFAIK Autoland is exclusively for low vis conditions, and cannot be used when there are high winds.

zeke wrote:

In conditions like this we would carry alternates like MNL, BKK and TPE plus an hours holding fuel.

According a KLM statement made to The Telegraaf, they had 1,5 hours worth of extra fuel, because KLM knew the storm might impact the flight. The article does not categorically state if this is 1,5 hours on top of the legal minimum, or if this includes the legal minimum.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/2900 ... oon__.html

skyhawkmatthew wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

An autoland at the limits of the airplane's acceptable conditions? There is no way this was an autoland. Don't insult other people if you are also not informed.

Varsity1 wrote:

Snowball's chance in hell.

Autoland is usually limited to 5 knots of wind.

Varsity1 wrote:

Those require a dry visual from the VDP. A real approach has significantly less tolerance. The 737 for example has a limit of 10 knots if RvR is less than 1000ft and 5 knots if the runway is contaminated.

Autoland can be finicky, they plane will often land in the crab with a huge side load. If winds are gusty, forget about it.

Seriously? The 777's auto flight system is immensely capable, much more so than the 737. It can, with runway condition "Good" or better (i.e. wet but no standing water), autoland up to the aircraft limit (for our company) of 38 knots; I've seen it done in previous horrific weather in HKG, it does a great job. The limit is 25 knots, as Zeke posted, when landing is predicated on autoland operations, i.e. LVO is in force. As long as you're above CAT I minima, which they were, you're all good to do an autoland with more wind. The lowest crosswind limit, landing on a "Poor" / Braking action 1 runway is 15 knots.

I would be surprised if the KLM flight's landing wasn't an autoland. In an aircraft with a good enough system, at the end of a long haul flight (and middle of the night for the crew's European body clock), it's the sensible thing to do when the weather is that bad.

Having the capability to use it does not mean a pilot is going to try it out in such extreme conditions. In the simulator sometimes okay but on a real flight, you trust your judgement as a pilot and do not leave a difficult landing to the automatics unless there is a reason.

speedbird52 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Nah, KLM simply has pilots who still know how to fly rather than just pushing right buttons on right order and letting autopilot handle everything.

There's a good chance that this was an autoland, but thank you for your informed, unbiased and level-headed input as usual.

AFAIK Autoland is exclusively for low vis conditions, and cannot be used when there are high winds.

Incorrect. You can use autoland for many conditions. Obviously low viz is where it comes into it's own but you can land using it in high winds. As someone else posted earlier, the wind limits are for conditions when you MUST use autoland i.e. below CAT1 weather. In good visibility, you can go beyond those wind limits. Whether a pilot wants to, or is comfortable with that is a different question.

speedbird52 wrote:

AFAIK Autoland is exclusively for low vis conditions, and cannot be used when there are high winds.

That is not true, you can autoland in CAVOK conditions, the aircraft does not know. We also autoland on runways that do not have LVO approaches when the conditions are above LVO limits.

petertenthije wrote:

According a KLM statement made to The Telegraaf, they had 1,5 hours worth of extra fuel, because KLM knew the storm might impact the flight.

I looked at the article I saw no reference to carrying an extra 90 minutes of fuel, maybe they have removed it. Just to clarify we would probably arrive at HKG when the where the weather is significant with diversion to TPE (80 minutes) + 60 minutes holding + 30 minutes reserve, i.e. 3 hrs of fuel.

vr-hkg wrote:

All that was needed was a gust or windshear at the wrong moment and this was the next CI642. KLM has forgotten the lessons of Tenerife, it seems, and impatience rules the day once more. Prudence would have recommended diverting elsewhere. The pax were going to be hugely inconvenienced regardless, with no public transport, airport essentially shut down and full of stranded pax, and hotels likely in chaos too. Far better to arrive a day late and safely than to take this unnecessary risk.

You have absolutely no clue and no idea how it works at KLM these days. So this "nothing learned from Tenerife" shows your total lack of knowledge. And in case you ask my wife is KLM crew so I kinda know how it goes.

There is track record of putting 747-400s into the water in Hong Kong during Typhoons (I was there when the CI 744 went into the harbour at Kai Tak), but it very easy to be an armchair pilot and second guess the crew. I would think it likely that the KLM crew was very experienced and so I wouldn't want to cast any doubt on their judgement.

As pointed out above the commercial decisions / calculations made by the locally based airlines are likely to be driven by different factors (e.g. recovering the schedule rapidly post-Typhoon) from those who are based elsewhere.