SQ 777 missed approach, two go-arounds, fuel emergency - report now out

[jakeseven7]

I’m sure the aviation boffins on here will have a few things to say on this but wow with this report just released into a late 2022 incident..

——

Singapore B773 at Batam, landed significantly below required final reserve fuel, declared emergency


A Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER landed very low on fuel after declaring ‘Mayday Fuel’ and aborting three attempted landings at a diversion airport in Indonesia.

The occurrence took place on 22 October 2022 after the aircraft (9V-SWH) operated a service from London Heathrow, according to a final report by Singapore’s Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB).

In the wake of the event, SIA has conducted a review of the incident with all pilots, and updating training around fuel management.

Full articles and how it all happened:

SIA 777 made missed approach, two go-arounds after declaring fuel emergency

A Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER landed very low on fuel after declaring 'Mayday Fuel' and aborting three attempted landings at a diversion airport in Indonesia.

www.flightglobal.com

The Aviation Herald

Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

avherald.com

 

[jb747]

Very scary reading. Sadly, it just comes across as amateur hour, especially the resistance to actually diverting, and then the multiple go arounds, even after having stated they had to get in off ‘this’ approach. “No auto land”. So what? Look out the window and do it yourself. Interestingly, this sort of thing is possibly a trend we’ll see more of, as airlines all over the place start mandating the use of auto land, and the pilots literally forget, or never actually knew, that they should be doing it themselves.

 

[RooFlyer]

@jb747 , the Av Herald report says

the crew informed ATC they would now perform a tear drop procedure to visually land on runway 22.

What's a tear-drop procedure, please?

 

[jb747]

@jb747 , the Av Herald report says

the crew informed ATC they would now perform a tear drop procedure to visually land on runway 22.

What's a tear-drop procedure, please?

Basically, just a reversal. For instance, you’ve taken off from 36 (i.e. heading north), you fly a couple of miles, then turn around in such a way that you end up positioned to land on 18 (to the south). The actual turn will probably involve turning in one direction through about 45º and then reversing in the opposite direction through about 225º. Looks like a teardrop.

Thinking about it, I heard a saga like this at Dubai. We’d arrived from Melbourne, and were holding. Dubai was covered in fog, as were the close alternates. Muscat, Doha, and others were open. We had plenty of fuel to head back to Muscat, so we were happy to wait. The issue wasn’t the weather per se, we could definitely land, but it slows things down quite dramatically.

A Cathay 330/350 (a twin, but I’m not sure which) arrived in the pattern after us. Shortly thereafter he started pushing ATC for a landing time, and eventually admitted to being low on fuel. An emergency was declared and he jumped the very long queue. He definitely did not have any alternate fuel, because ATC asked him. The holding at Dubai was normal, and you were a fool if you didn’t allow for it. But, beyond that the fog was on the forecast, so there was zero excuse for not having alternate fuel. It was actually a requirement. Whilst he may have initially planned on one of the nearer airfields (as did Singair in the tale above) the reality is that they often have exactly the same weather. But, he also flew past Muscat, and at that point would have known exactly what was happening ahead.

 

[VeniVidiVici]

@jb747 , the Av Herald report says

the crew informed ATC they would now perform a tear drop procedure to visually land on runway 22.

What's a tear-drop procedure, please?

Essentially turning back on to the original path but then in the opposite direction. Heading N for instance, looping turn W, then E then around to the S. Pattern would look a bit like a tear drop.

A kind of u turn

Post automatically merged: Oct 4, 2023

Beat me to it, and much more thorough

 

[flyingfan]

Are alternative airports so close together for weather usual / would it be prudent to have a couple more further away? Surely weather would probably affect all three airports mentioned.

 

[Mwenenzi]

. Whilst he may have initially planned on one of the nearer airfields (as did Singair in the tale above) the reality is that they often have exactly the same weather. But, he also flew past Muscat, and at that point would have known exactly what was happening ahead.

Save face?
--> save face - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

 

[jb747]

Are alternative airports so close together for weather usual / would it be prudent to have a couple more further away? Surely weather would probably affect all three airports mentioned.

Because the airlines are so desperate for you to carry the absolute minimum fuel, they'll invariably use the nearest airport that they can get away with. In many cases, you don't need them to be all that far apart to end up with quite different weather. For instance it was extremely unlikely that LAX and Ontario would have the same conditions. They were roughly 40 miles apart and one was one the coast whilst the other was inland.

In the UAE, you had Dubai and Dubai World, and even though only about 25 miles apart, and both on the coast it was rare for both to be foggy at the same time. But, then other factors would come into play, as it was extremely slow to be processed when there was fog, and if you did divert it could take a long time to get the aircraft back. If you went to one of the places further afield, there was a good chance you'd need a new crew, so it could easily become an extended exercise.

In the case of Singapore though, I know that some airlines (one especially) use Paya Lebar as their alternate. It's barely 5 miles away, and whilst it may be technically legal, it's extremely likely to be affected by the same weather as Singapore. Batam is about 20 miles away, and is generally not affected at the same time as Singapore.

By using these extremely close alternates, the flight planners are able to reduce the legal amount of fuel that you need to divert to an almost negligible number. So technically you have an alternate, but you most certainly don't have any fuel beyond the bare minimum. Remember too, that in many airlines now, the fuel order is actually being made by a flight planner, and not the pilots, and it's easy to see this going wrong. The aim is simply to make the departure legal....in their little planning minds, you aren't actually going to divert.

Of course, having a pilot order the fuel isn't necessarily a cure, and many of them have caught the minimum fuel disease too. I used to take great delight in adding the same amount of fuel that was being offloaded by some of our 'vapours' men, on top of what I was going to order anyway.

 

[Quickstatus]

The holding at Dubai was normal

What was it usually, and then with fog?

At what point do arrival aircraft announce their arrival?

 

[jb747]

What was it usually, and then with fog?

At what point do arrival aircraft announce their arrival?

By normal, I meant that you always got some level of holding. We invariably arrived at busy times of the day, so if you managed only 30 minutes in the hold, that was a good outcome.

If there was fog, the forecasts and reports might include an expected duration. In that case you needed an hour beyond the planned end, or an alternate. Because aircraft would be arriving in a constant stream once any delays started, having the fog disappear didn't mean everyone could suddenly land. It would take substantial time to clear the queue. I always tried to have an hour beyond what was need for any planned weather. There's little point in only carrying diversion fuel in that case, because you won't be able to hold at all... The amount of fuel required could be pretty impressive, which certainly ate into any viability that Dubai had for QF.

Singapore was another place where my personal minimum was an hour of holding, no matter what the forecast.

 

[Quickstatus]

...an hour ...

1hr = ?Tons ?

 

[flyer89]

They really made a pigs ear out of this but because it’s too complicated to unpack I doubt the mainstream media will comment.

The they way they dealt with NO AUTOLAND is troublesome. I can hear some trainers/instructors uttering “you have hands and feet, use them”.

 

[jb747]

1hr = ?Tons ?

About 9 tonnes for a 380.

They really made a pigs ear out of this but because it’s too complicated to unpack I doubt the mainstream media will comment.

I like the way that we still don't know exactly how much fuel they landed with.

The they way they dealt with NO AUTOLAND is troublesome. I can hear some trainers/instructors uttering “you have hands and feet, use them”.

Well, I guess that not only can't they make decisions, they aren't all that big on being able to fly either. There is really no excuse for that.

 

[Quickstatus]

9 tonnes

How much fuel just to carry 1 hr of holding?

 

[pauly7]

Wow that’s an incredibly scary read…

 

[tdimdad]

Reading at the timestamps in the first article, it looks like it took about 75 mins from being notified of the hold until landing. Would that indicate that they had sufficient reserve fuel onboard but the problem started to mount from slow or inefficient decision-making (whether and when to divert)?

 

[MIAWS]

The 'pilot in command' is the ultimate person in charge for the safe conduct and operation of 'any flight', and from a small Cessna to any Airbus or Boeing, and if the flight planner gives fuel allowance, that the 'pilot in command' deems unacceptable in 'professional judgement', then that plane does NOT leave the gate / ground. The issue started from before they even left LHR. Just my early analysis. What do they say, "fuel on the ground is expensive; fuel in the air is priceless"... And there's nothing "scary" it's just basic flight management, and I can see how this all unfolded. Never waste time in the air, given an unfolding and ever deteriorating situation, you can always walk away and 'explain that later' on terra firma. I'm glad the outcome was as professional as pilots are trained.

 

[jb747]

The 'pilot in command' is the ultimate person in charge for the safe conduct and operation of 'any flight', and from a small Cessna to any Airbus or Boeing, and if the flight planner gives fuel allowance, that the 'pilot in command' deems unacceptable in 'professional judgement', then that plane does NOT leave the gate / ground.

Good theory, but you’ve obviously had little to do with the way that many airlines actually work.

I'm glad the outcome was as professional as pilots are trained.

There was nothing professional about the outcome or event.

 

[jakeseven7]

I'm glad the outcome was as professional as pilots are trained.

Ummm how did you draw that conclusion from the report?!

 

[Mattg]

This is quite an interesting video about this flight: