Goodbye wrote:

The overreaction by the media this morning (I live in Australia) was nothing short of hysterical. Live crosses to the airport to their reporter "on the ground". Talking about a "major emergency" with the plane "running out of fuel". Roads being closed. It was absolutely ridiculous.

Nothing ridiculous at all, standard procedure when a wide body calls in a mayday so emergency vehicles can have faster access.

Zeke, as per the procedures I posted earlier, the only way to get special handling and priority in Australian airspace is to declare Mayday fuel. Min fuel will only seek to ensure no additional delays are incurred. Of course, if min fuel were to be declared I would expect in most circumstances all possible will be done to expedite the aircraft. Also, it's interesting to note there seems to be a disconnect in what you say regarding remaining fuel/alternates and under what circumstances to declare and that which is written in our documentation.

OK, they declared Mayday to get priority handling and perhaps because their filed alternate was out of range. But why would they then refuse track shortening and decline others offers of priority handling (alternate runway, etc...)?

hotelbravo wrote:

OK, they declared Mayday to get priority handling and perhaps because their filed alternate was out of range. But why would they then refuse track shortening and decline others offers of priority handling (alternate runway, etc...)?

Perhaps because they knew if there were no further delays the planned approach and landing would suffice. Any more delay and those other options might have been needed.

Goodbye wrote:

The overreaction by the media this morning (I live in Australia) was nothing short of hysterical. Live crosses to the airport to their reporter "on the ground". Talking about a "major emergency" with the plane "running out of fuel". Roads being closed. It was absolutely ridiculous.

Even the slightly informed would have thought exactly this (me included) Not much news recently, looking for anything to make a big fuss about. Laughed my ass off when they interviewed the passengers and the look on their faces when the reporter asked how they felt was hilarious. oh, and to point out that 777 footage as well

Why has this this been all over the news in such a over the top way? If you google united airlines this event comes up among the first search results. I would say it is pretty much a non-event, and just regular procedures were followed when you start going into final fuel reserves.

qf789 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

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

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

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

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

Many mahalos QF. While there may be a few people on this thread not keen to Jumbo’s ways, I, like you know exactly where his comment was headed if anyone would have fallen for the bait.

Also, for those calling the correction of aircraft types pedantic, you are on an aviation enthusiast site in the civil aviation forum section. You get the same responses if you went on a auto forum and mis-indentified the name of the vehicle the thread was concerning.

77H

jumbojet wrote:

qf789 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

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

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

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

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

I didnt mention anything about Delta and my bad, 787-9 not 900. Long day at the office, Point being, if, as the article suggested there was only 180 folks on-board, then wouldnt that particluar aircraft be able to fly LAX-SYD without having fuel issues? Was it an operational mixup?

You only carry enough fuel to safely operate the flight in the anticipated conditions. If you add I needed fuel you will be heavier and burn much of that extra just to carry it on board.

Over 14 hours a lot of things can contribute to landing less than planned. But if the case was that they landed with :40 minutes then that is at least :35 minutes less than the minimum UA would plan to land with on an international flight.

Okie wrote:

The plane landed at 6:30a, I am not sure of the scheduled arrival but SYD has a 6:00a curfew. That does not take into account additional fuel usage fighting headwinds trying to maintain ground speed but at worst it was 30min additional flight time.

Either serious fuel miscalculation or mechanical issue having usable fuel in a tank that can not be transferred to be used.

Okie

Airliners don’t try and maintain a ground speed. They fly a TAS or Mach for a predetermined Cost Index.

hotelbravo wrote:

OK, they declared Mayday to get priority handling and perhaps because their filed alternate was out of range. But why would they then refuse track shortening and decline others offers of priority handling (alternate runway, etc...)?

Becausw if you've already briefed for another runway, the track shortening could leave you with a) insufficient time to rebrief or b) too much energy to lose leaving you in danger of busting your stable approach criteria. The last thing you need when you're low on fuel is to have to fly a self induced go-around. The extra ~5 minutes may well have been time well spent.

OceanATC wrote:

Zeke, as per the procedures I posted earlier, the only way to get special handling and priority in Australian airspace is to declare Mayday fuel. Min fuel will only seek to ensure no additional delays are incurred. Of course, if min fuel were to be declared I would expect in most circumstances all possible will be done to expedite the aircraft. Also, it's interesting to note there seems to be a disconnect in what you say regarding remaining fuel/alternates and under what circumstances to declare and that which is written in our documentation.

Please tell me what disconnect that is, minimum fuel is declared when you have exhausted all other options, you are committed to an airport, and you will land with min reserve. Mayday fuel is declared when you will land at the nearest airport with less than fixed reserve. Nearest airport was YWLM.

Refer page 6-9 to 6-22 in the ICAO FPFMM manual http://www.ifalpa.org/store/doc9976.pdf

This is nothing about special procedures in Australia, that is the international standard.

zeke wrote:

Mayday means you are actually below 30 minutes

Yet we read the Aussie ATC rules:

OceanATC wrote:

11.9.6.1 The pilot in command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY 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 fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.

The rules allow for MAYDAY when you predict being below the planned fixed fuel reserve, and includes the word 'useable' which is making allowance for a mechanical issue.

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:

Mayday means you are actually below 30 minutes

Yet we read the Aussie ATC rules:

OceanATC wrote:

11.9.6.1 The pilot in command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY 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 fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.

The rules allow for MAYDAY when you predict being below the planned fixed fuel reserve, and includes the word 'useable' which is making allowance for a mechanical issue.

They are not Australian rules, that is standard ICAO. The nearest aerodrome was YWLM which ATC offered but was declined by the crew. It would seem the crew were clueless on the use of the term, where ATC were correct.

Refer up in the thread, live ATC has them saying it was related to MEL no longer being available due to Wx, nothing to do with landing with less than 30 minutes in the tanks.

I am surprised that posters here discuss if the Mayday call was necessary, considering how well delayed Mayday calls worked out in the past. That was a decision fully in line with a "better save than sorry" culture and that is a healthy culture for any airline.

seahawk wrote:

I am surprised that posters here discuss if the Mayday call was necessary, considering how well delayed Mayday calls worked out in the past. That was a decision fully in line with a "better save than sorry" culture and that is a healthy culture for any airline.

You can say the same for the truck rolls and road closures too: better safe than sorry, it gave the first responders a realistic training drill, and the pissed off motorists can bugger off.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I am surprised that posters here discuss if the Mayday call was necessary, considering how well delayed Mayday calls worked out in the past. That was a decision fully in line with a "better save than sorry" culture and that is a healthy culture for any airline.

You can say the same for the truck rolls and road closures too: better safe than sorry, it gave the first responders a realistic training drill, and the pissed off motorists can bugger off.

I would always say the same. It is part of a healthy safety culture. If it standard procedure, it has to be done exactly that way. A healthy safety culture means you will do plenty unnecessary drills and hopefully no real one ever.

Fair enough Zeke, I know you know your stuff. Your earlier wording just made it seem like a different interpretation which puzzled me given our AIP is based on standard ICAO rules on the matter. I was curious if there may be different interpretations in use elsewhere - which wouldn't be ideal.

You can say the same for the truck rolls and road closures too: better safe than sorry, it gave the first responders a realistic training drill, and the pissed off motorists can bugger off.

Apparently standard procedure when any heavy calls mayday into YSSY.

Goodbye wrote:

The overreaction by the media this morning (I live in Australia) was nothing short of hysterical. Live crosses to the airport to their reporter "on the ground". Talking about a "major emergency" with the plane "running out of fuel". Roads being closed. It was absolutely ridiculous.

I don't understand it.

My local news radio actually PLAYED the "mayday" call, which was about the most typical boring ATC non-event recording I've ever heard in my life. They played it as if there was imminent disaster and they had some gem of reporting to play for us.

zeke wrote:

Goodbye wrote:

The overreaction by the media this morning (I live in Australia) was nothing short of hysterical. Live crosses to the airport to their reporter "on the ground". Talking about a "major emergency" with the plane "running out of fuel". Roads being closed. It was absolutely ridiculous.

Nothing ridiculous at all, standard procedure when a wide body calls in a mayday so emergency vehicles can have faster access.

I'd say you're both right. Closing the roads around the airport to speed up any emergency vehicle access isn't ridiculous.

The media coverage - especially the lowest common denominator shows like Today and Sunrise, see a glimpse of the word 'emergency' and Kochie and Karl will be down there to greet the passengers oblivious to what's going on. They thrive on hysterical coverage, but that's not isolated to what happened at SYD this morning.

estorilm wrote:

Goodbye wrote:

The overreaction by the media this morning (I live in Australia) was nothing short of hysterical. Live crosses to the airport to their reporter "on the ground". Talking about a "major emergency" with the plane "running out of fuel". Roads being closed. It was absolutely ridiculous.

I don't understand it.

My local news radio actually PLAYED the "mayday" call, which was about the most typical boring ATC non-event recording I've ever heard in my life. They played it as if there was imminent disaster and they had some gem of reporting to play for us.

The main problem here I think is the word “Mayday” equates to “emergency” in the minds of most media and average citizens. If, say, “Pan Pan, Pan Pan fuel” was used instead this may not have triggered all the media fuss.

I don't understand why this was all over the news if the aircraft landed uneventfully?

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

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:

Mayday means you are actually below 30 minutes

Yet we read the Aussie ATC rules:

OceanATC wrote:

11.9.6.1 The pilot in command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY 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 fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.

The rules allow for MAYDAY when you predict being below the planned fixed fuel reserve, and includes the word 'useable' which is making allowance for a mechanical issue.

They are not Australian rules, that is standard ICAO. The nearest aerodrome was YWLM which ATC offered but was declined by the crew. It would seem the crew were clueless on the use of the term, where ATC were correct.

Refer up in the thread, live ATC has them saying it was related to MEL no longer being available due to Wx, nothing to do with landing with less than 30 minutes in the tanks.

You call the crew “clueless “. Yet you were not on the flight deck. You were not looking at the fuel status in real time. It appears that you are showing more signs of being clueless than anyone involved in this actual incident. The crew did as they are trained. If it was trained incorrectly then the training program will be altered to attest to any needs.

Your comments are an embarrassment

i've been on a flight when the pilot declared a Mayday due to fuel, not the best feeling but nothing that would stop me from flying. Im sure if the flight was in actual danger of running out of fuel, the pilot would of diverted the flight.

The media picked this up because "United airlines " is a term they publish everything on since they pulled a doctor down the isle. Expected for the media they are still obsessed with anything united right or wrong.

One thing I would say is a.net people see united and immediately go into defensive mode Lol. If this was a ULCC we would read people coming out of nowhere in Lynch mob mode and this would be page 10 already!

Zeke, "mayday" does not mean you are actually below 30 minutes; it means that the flight crews has reason to believe that they are going to be below 30 minutes upon arrival. That is when the emergency exists. The declaration of emergency comes when the flight crew no longer feels that the flight can be completed safely. They then follow whatever course of action is most prudent in the interest of safety. If that action is to continue to the originally planned destination, then that's what they do.

I am quite sure UA will do an internal investigation, look at the flight recorder info, if proper reason for the decision for the call, checked key fuel components, review weather conditions and flight altitude wind speeds on this flight. The thing is with these ULH's, perhaps pressure on pilots to avoid hassles from diversions, any slight issue with the fuel systems (like a pressure or pickup issue), possible questions of quantity of fuel on board, caused the need to use the call for priority in order of landing access. I would rather they made a decision as was done here rather that argue about it and end up like UA did decades ago near PDX.

OceanATC wrote:

FYI Min fuel and emergency fuel procedures straight from the Australian AIP manual.

11.9.5 Minimum Fuel

11.9.5.1 The pilot in command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel reserve.

Note 1: The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel reserve. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.

Note 2: Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” declaration. ATC will, however, advise the flight crew of any additional expected delays as well as coordinate when transferring control of the aeroplane to ensure other ATC units are aware of the flight’s fuel state.

11.9.6 Emergency Fuel

11.9.6.1 The pilot in command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY 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 fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.

Note: MAYDAY FUEL declaration is a distress message. A distress message is reported when the pilot in command has assessed the aircraft is threatened with grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.

11.9.6.2 It is a requirement in any case where an aircraft lands with less than its planned fixed fuel reserve that the pilot in command shall consider the event an immediately reportable matter and file the
required report.

Thank you. A reportable fuel event then.

Someone has some explaining to do.

Lightsaber

I think everyone is looking way too deeply into the “published” meaning of the word “Mayday”. When it comes right down to it, the Captain can call it whatever he wants. It is up to his discretion. If he feels the situation warrants it, then yes, he may use the word Mayday. There is nothing that says he can’t. In fact, one could argue that by not using it, he wouldn’t be treating the situation seriously. Finally, nobody here was on the flight deck. This is all aimless speculation based off sensationalized news reports.

ual763 wrote:

I think everyone is looking way too deeply into the “published” meaning of the word “Mayday”. When it comes right down to it, the Captain can call it whatever he wants. It is up to his discretion. If he feels the situation warrants it, then yes, he may use the word Mayday. There is nothing that says he can’t. In fact, one could argue that by not using it, he wouldn’t be treating the situation seriously. Finally, nobody here was on the flight deck. This is all aimless speculation based off sensationalized news reports.

100%. Capt duty is to his passengers and his machine. Call the Mayday if you see a serious situation developing. You can downgrade to a PAN or Ops Nml later. Good job United.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

The media picked this up because "United airlines " is a term they publish everything on since they pulled a doctor down the isle. Expected for the media they are still obsessed with anything united right or wrong.

One thing I would say is a.net people see united and immediately go into defensive mode Lol. If this was a ULCC we would read people coming out of nowhere in Lynch mob mode and this would be page 10 already!

Perfect summary of the incident and the thread. Imagine it being Airasia

I think Australians here should feel lucky that one of their biggest news story is a normal low fuel mayday call by an ultra long flight.

You turn the news in other countries and you want to kill yourself....

Go Australia!

lightsaber wrote:

OceanATC wrote:

FYI Min fuel and emergency fuel procedures straight from the Australian AIP manual.

11.9.5 Minimum Fuel

11.9.5.1 The pilot in command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel reserve.

Note 1: The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel reserve. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.

Note 2: Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” declaration. ATC will, however, advise the flight crew of any additional expected delays as well as coordinate when transferring control of the aeroplane to ensure other ATC units are aware of the flight’s fuel state.

11.9.6 Emergency Fuel

11.9.6.1 The pilot in command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY 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 fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.

Note: MAYDAY FUEL declaration is a distress message. A distress message is reported when the pilot in command has assessed the aircraft is threatened with grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.

11.9.6.2 It is a requirement in any case where an aircraft lands with less than its planned fixed fuel reserve that the pilot in command shall consider the event an immediately reportable matter and file the
required report.

Thank you. A reportable fuel event then.

Someone has some explaining to do.

Lightsaber

It might not be the intention, sometimes the written word can be interpreted in various ways, but I hope "someone has some explaining to do" is so that we can all learn from the event rather than trying to find a scapegoat and apportion blame. Aviation's enviable safety record won't be maintained or improved by witch-hunts. The criticism of the crew by some on here is startling. They did what was necessary to ensure what was ultimately a safe outcome. Good on them.

The crew will file their ASAP report and they'll probably never hear about it again. If there was a mechanical problem, the airplane would have been written up and the maintenance item would be cleared prior to the next flight. Non-event really.

If LAX-SYD on a 787-9 declared a fuel emergency then there's no way in hell IAH-SYD would make it nonstop today.

zeke wrote:

Refer up in the thread, live ATC has them saying it was related to MEL no longer being available due to Wx, nothing to do with landing with less than 30 minutes in the tanks.

Just to clarify, noone actually said in the recording (at least not that I could hear, the recording wasn't perfect in parts) that the mayday call was because of the SIGMET for YMML. Also to be clear, there was nothing to suggest YMML was unavailable as such, rather that extended holding would be likely. I read between the lines a little - ATC advised all stations (on Brisbane Centre, again while UA839 was still at, or had just left, FL410) that ATIS information for YSSY had been updated and one of the changes was a SIGMET for YMML. About 10-15 minutes later (closer to 10 from memory) is when the chatter about UA839's situation started. It's logical to think that the two might be related, as the elapsed time between the two was sufficient for the crew to have done some calculations, discussed among themselves and possibly with their ops centre, and decided they'd not enough fuel to continue under 'normal' conditions.

N649DL wrote:

If LAX-SYD on a 787-9 declared a fuel emergency then there's no way in hell IAH-SYD would make it nonstop today.

UA839 made it in less time than most days, so every chance the flight from IAH would also been quicker than most days. Elapsed time of the flight isn't the issue here...

jayunited wrote:

declared a fuel emergency for minimum fuel.

Declaring an emergency due fuel is interpreted by ATC as "Mayday fuel" which was no doubt passed down the line between controllers. This is probably where the word mayday came from in the media even if the crew never actually said it.

That being said, from what few extra details I know (outside the ridiculous media coverage) I think the crew acted correctly in terms of dealing with the delay under the circumstances. However it's not appropriate for me to give any specifics, I don't have all the details and I certainly don't know what was happening on the flightdeck.

sadiqutp wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

The media picked this up because "United airlines " is a term they publish everything on since they pulled a doctor down the isle. Expected for the media they are still obsessed with anything united right or wrong.

One thing I would say is a.net people see united and immediately go into defensive mode Lol. If this was a ULCC we would read people coming out of nowhere in Lynch mob mode and this would be page 10 already!

Perfect summary of the incident and the thread. Imagine it being Airasia

Imagaine Norweigan. The servers would be blown!

DeltaB717 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Refer up in the thread, live ATC has them saying it was related to MEL no longer being available due to Wx, nothing to do with landing with less than 30 minutes in the tanks.

Just to clarify, noone actually said in the recording (at least not that I could hear, the recording wasn't perfect in parts) that the mayday call was because of the SIGMET for YMML. Also to be clear, there was nothing to suggest YMML was unavailable as such, rather that extended holding would be likely. I read between the lines a little - ATC advised all stations (on Brisbane Centre, again while UA839 was still at, or had just left, FL410) that ATIS information for YSSY had been updated and one of the changes was a SIGMET for YMML. About 10-15 minutes later (closer to 10 from memory) is when the chatter about UA839's situation started. It's logical to think that the two might be related, as the elapsed time between the two was sufficient for the crew to have done some calculations, discussed among themselves and possibly with their ops centre, and decided they'd not enough fuel to continue under 'normal' conditions.

N649DL wrote:

If LAX-SYD on a 787-9 declared a fuel emergency then there's no way in hell IAH-SYD would make it nonstop today.

UA839 made it in less time than most days, so every chance the flight from IAH would also been quicker than most days. Elapsed time of the flight isn't the issue here...

Yeah my bad, I had to check flightaware.com and the last few days it's been running between 17 and 18 hours. Yikes.

jayunited wrote:

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

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

mcdu wrote:

You call the crew “clueless “. Yet you were not on the flight deck. You were not looking at the fuel status in real time. It appears that you are showing more signs of being clueless than anyone involved in this actual incident. The crew did as they are trained. If it was trained incorrectly then the training program will be altered to attest to any needs.

Your comments are an embarrassment

Mcdu,

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

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

DeltaB717 wrote:

Just to clarify, noone actually said in the recording (at least not that I could hear, the recording wasn't perfect in parts) that the mayday call was because of the SIGMET for YMML.

Had a look at the Wx in MEL it was perfectly fine.

METAR/SPECI from YMML

METAR YMML 040430Z 19013KT 9999 BKN032 SCT040 14/04 Q1021
NOSIG=
SA 04/10/2018 04:00->
METAR YMML 040400Z 17016KT 9999 BKN032 14/04 Q1021 NOSIG=
SA 04/10/2018 03:30->
METAR YMML 040330Z 17015KT 9999 BKN032 13/06 Q1021 NOSIG=
SA 04/10/2018 03:00->
METAR YMML 040300Z 18013KT 9999 BKN035 13/05 Q1021 NOSIG=
SA 04/10/2018 02:30->
METAR YMML 040230Z 19013KT 9999 BKN038 13/05 Q1022 NOSIG=
SA 04/10/2018 02:00->
METAR YMML 040200Z 18013KT 9999 BKN038 13/03 Q1022 NOSIG=
SA 04/10/2018 01:30->
METAR YMML 040130Z 18011KT 9999 BKN038 14/03 Q1022 NOSIG=
SA 04/10/2018 01:00->
METAR YMML 040100Z 17014KT 9999 BKN038 13/02 Q1022 NOSIG=
SA 04/10/2018 00:30->
METAR YMML 040030Z 19012KT 9999 BKN034 13/02 Q1022 NOSIG=
SA 04/10/2018 00:00->
METAR YMML 040000Z 17011KT 9999 BKN028 BKN038 12/03 Q1022
NOSIG=
SA 03/10/2018 23:30->
METAR YMML 032330Z 17012KT 9999 BKN027 BKN040 12/04 Q1023
NOSIG=
SA 03/10/2018 23:00->
METAR YMML 032300Z 18011KT 9999 BKN028 BKN039 11/04 Q1022
NOSIG=
SA 03/10/2018 22:30->
METAR YMML 032230Z 19012KT 9999 SCT027 BKN035 11/04 Q1022
NOSIG=
SA 03/10/2018 22:00->
METAR YMML 032200Z 17011KT 9999 FEW028 BKN034 11/04 Q1022
NOSIG=
SA 03/10/2018 21:30->
METAR YMML 032130Z 17009KT 9999 BKN034 11/02 Q1022 NOSIG=
SA 03/10/2018 21:00->
METAR YMML 032100Z 15008KT 9999 BKN032 10/02 Q1022 NOSIG=
SA 03/10/2018 20:30->
METAR YMML 032030Z 17010KT 9999 BKN032 10/02 Q1021 NOSIG=
SA 03/10/2018 20:00->
METAR YMML 032000Z 17012KT 9999 BKN030 10/03 Q1021 NOSIG=


TAF YMML 032326Z 0400/0506 18014KT 9999 BKN035 FM041000 16008KT
9999 FEW010 FM042200 14012KT CAVOK FM050300 17015G25KT
CAVOK=

zeke wrote:

mcdu wrote:

You call the crew “clueless “. Yet you were not on the flight deck. You were not looking at the fuel status in real time. It appears that you are showing more signs of being clueless than anyone involved in this actual incident. The crew did as they are trained. If it was trained incorrectly then the training program will be altered to attest to any needs.

Your comments are an embarrassment

Mcdu,

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

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

Do you know the fuel state when passing those stations? Was the SYD weather acceptable to delete the alternate? An alternate is required for dispatch but may not be needed once enroute if destination weather doesn’t require it to be named.

Do you know the UAL ops specs and methods of dispatch? If you don’t then, yes you are the clueless one speaking on a topic you have zero first hand knowledge of. Please if you can sit in you hovel and decide what took place then you must be clairvoyant.

You are not educated or knowledgeable on this incident and you are making yourself look very badly with each message you type.

mcdu wrote:

Do you know the fuel state when passing those stations? Was the SYD weather acceptable to delete the alternate?

You are not educated or knowledgeable on this incident and you are making yourself look very badly with each message you type.

Ok the dumass you say I am is able to tell you when they were 90 minutes out from SYD they were 30 minutes from BNE where it was CAVOK. When they were 30 minutes from SYD they were under 15 binutes from NTL where the wind was 10 kts with a base of 1000 ft.

They proceeded to SYD in a state of emergency to the worst Wx.

I am sorry for being a uneducated or not knowledgeable on this matter to point that out to you. Thank you for the correction.

METAR/SPECI from YSSY

METAR YSSY 040230Z 19021KT 9999 VCSH FEW008 BKN010 16/14
Q1016 TEMPO 0325/0530 4000 SHRA BKN008=
SP 04/10/2018 02:30->
SPECI YSSY 040230Z 19021KT 9999 VCSH FEW008 BKN010 16/14
Q1016=
SA 04/10/2018 02:00->
METAR YSSY 040200Z 19018KT 9999 VCSH FEW006 BKN008 16/15
Q1016=
SP 04/10/2018 02:00->
SPECI YSSY 040200Z 19018KT 9999 VCSH FEW006 BKN008 16/15
Q1016=
SA 04/10/2018 01:30->
METAR YSSY 040130Z 19021KT 9999 VCSH FEW006 BKN008 BKN090
16/15 Q1017=
SP 04/10/2018 01:30->
SPECI YSSY 040130Z 19021KT 9999 VCSH FEW006 BKN008 BKN090
16/15 Q1017=
SA 04/10/2018 01:00->
METAR YSSY 040100Z 19018KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 16/15 Q1017=
SP 04/10/2018 01:00->
SPECI YSSY 040100Z 19018KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 16/15 Q1017=
SA 04/10/2018 00:30->
METAR YSSY 040030Z 19014KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 BKN035
15/15 Q1017 TEMPO 0125/0330 4000 SHRA BKN008=
SP 04/10/2018 00:30->
SPECI YSSY 040030Z 19014KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 BKN035
15/15 Q1017=
SA 04/10/2018 00:00->
METAR YSSY 040000Z 20013KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 15/14 Q1018=
SP 04/10/2018 00:00->
SPECI YSSY 040000Z 20013KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 15/14 Q1018=
SA 03/10/2018 23:30->
METAR YSSY 032330Z 19014KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 16/15 Q1018
TEMPO 0025/0230 4000 SHRA BKN008=
SP 03/10/2018 23:30->
SPECI YSSY 032330Z 19014KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 16/15 Q1018=
SA 03/10/2018 23:00->
METAR YSSY 032300Z 20014KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 16/15 Q1018=
SP 03/10/2018 23:00->
SPECI YSSY 032300Z 20014KT 9999 -RA FEW006 BKN008 16/15 Q1018=
SA 03/10/2018 22:30->
METAR YSSY 032230Z 20012KT 9999 -RA BKN006 BKN035 16/15 Q1018
INTER 2255/2400 5000 SHRA BKN010 TEMPO 0000/0130
4000 SHRA BKN010=
SP 03/10/2018 22:30->
SPECI YSSY 032230Z 20012KT 9999 -RA BKN006 BKN035 16/15 Q1018=
SP 03/10/2018 22:17->
SPECI YSSY 032217Z 20014KT 9999 -RA BKN006 SCT035 BKN070
16/15 Q1018=
SA 03/10/2018 22:00->
METAR YSSY 032200Z 20012KT 9999 -RA FEW006 SCT035 BKN070
16/15 Q1018 INTER 2200/2400 5000 SHRA BKN010 TEMPO
0000/0100 4000 SHRA BKN010=
SA 03/10/2018 21:30->
METAR YSSY 032130Z 20013KT 9999 -RA FEW007 SCT035 BKN075
16/15 Q1018 INTER 2130/2400 5000 SHRA BKN010 TEMPO
0000/0030 4000 SHRA BKN010=
SA 03/10/2018 21:00->
METAR YSSY 032100Z 20012KT 9999 -RA FEW007 BKN035 BKN085
16/15 Q1017 INTER 2100/2400 5000 SHRA BKN010=
SA 03/10/2018 20:30->
METAR YSSY 032030Z 19013KT 9999 -RA FEW007 BKN035 BKN085
16/15 Q1017 INTER 2100/2330 5000 SHRA BKN010=
SA 03/10/2018 20:00->
METAR YSSY 032000Z 19015KT 9999 -RA FEW012 SCT035 BKN080
17/15 Q1017 FM2000 18015KT 9999 -SHRA SCT015 SCT025
INTER 2200/2300 5000 SHRA BKN010=

No short TAF reports from YSSY, long TAF

TAF AMD YSSY 032309Z 0400/0506 18018G28KT 9999 -RA SCT010 BKN025
FM041000 15020G30KT 9999 -RA SCT010 BKN025 FM041400 16025G35KT
9999 -RA SCT010 BKN025
TEMPO 0400/0424 4000 RA BKN008 INTER 0500/0506 5000 RA
BKN010=

zuckie13 wrote:

From the audio, there was a mention of a possible fuel leak. ATC told the flight coming in behind them there'd be a delay for a runway inspection after this one landed. Depending on when the leak started, that could have an impact on why the didn't divert sooner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvtnA6q0dBI
Leak mentioned around 3:40

Whoever captioned that did a terrible job - the ATC clearly states "I just need to leave a little gap, there'll be a runway inspection afterwards".

zeke wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

Just to clarify, noone actually said in the recording (at least not that I could hear, the recording wasn't perfect in parts) that the mayday call was because of the SIGMET for YMML.

Had a look at the Wx in MEL it was perfectly fine.

I dunno what to tell ya... I'd not looked at the weather until you posted it, and I agree it was fine. Melbourne weather was definitely mentioned in the recording, though. EDIT: if you listen to the AU satellite feed recording from LiveATC for 03/1930z, at just under 15:45 through that recording (i.e. just before 1946z / 0546 local) there is an all stations broadcast notifying Information Tango is current: "one change, significant weather, Melbourne SIGMET Papa 04 is valid until time 2341. Sydney Information Tango."

DeltaB717 wrote:

I dunno what to tell ya... I'd not looked at the weather until you posted it, and I agree it was fine. Melbourne weather was definitely mentioned in the recording, though. EDIT: if you listen to the AU satellite feed recording from LiveATC for 03/1930z, at just under 15:45 through that recording (i.e. just before 1946z / 0546 local) there is an all stations broadcast notifying Information Tango is current: "one change, significant weather, Melbourne SIGMET Papa 04 is valid until time 2341. Sydney Information Tango."

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

In other words, the significant weather mentioned on ATIS Tango was weather affecting sydney aerodrome.

OceanATC wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

I dunno what to tell ya... I'd not looked at the weather until you posted it, and I agree it was fine. Melbourne weather was definitely mentioned in the recording, though. EDIT: if you listen to the AU satellite feed recording from LiveATC for 03/1930z, at just under 15:45 through that recording (i.e. just before 1946z / 0546 local) there is an all stations broadcast notifying Information Tango is current: "one change, significant weather, Melbourne SIGMET Papa 04 is valid until time 2341. Sydney Information Tango."

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

In other words, the significant weather mentioned on ATIS Tango was weather affecting sydney aerodrome.

Ahh got ya... thanks for the correction! Didn't make any sense once Zeke posted the actual weather for YMML!