Diversion of a Transavia flight because of stormy weather

sean1982 · Post by **sean1982** » 26 Jul 2015, 08:32

Do I have to remind you wich type of weather hit MAD the evening of the FR diversions? They were also down to one runway most of the time due to thunderstorms blocking the approach paths, with one go around after the other

1 aircraft had a holding + go around due to windshear + lightning strike

Another had to abandon approach due to weather + vectoring around due to weather + another abandoned approach due to weather + diversion + holding in VLC

Another one had holding in MAD + vectors due to weather + go around + diversion + holding at VLC

So what is it, weather of not enough fuel in the tanks to hold untill it was their turn for the KLM aircraft? Can you please tell me what the difference is, mr expert?

About the video. Great landing of that KLM B777 crew! Yet when FR does something similar you feel the need to post a link to a british tabloid about "Ryanair landing on one wheel only, passengers narrowly escape with their lives"

Talk about 2 maten en gewichten

Homo Aeroportus · Post by **Homo Aeroportus** » 26 Jul 2015, 10:06

Dear Sean,

Could you please calm down?
Your over-excitement is getting boring, affects your credibility and does not bring any good to Ryanair.

Statements like :

"Postby sean1982 » 23 Jul 2015, 11:07
I dont care what CAIAC says. I dont care what the dutch court says. I WORK there. EASA hasnt got any problems with FR. The IAA hasnt got any problems with Fr. I deal with this stuff EVERY SINGLE day and there is no pressure on pilots to carry "as little fuel as possible" WHATSOEVER."

have shown your state of denial and/or lack of real knowledge of the situation.

Unfortunately this hides the facts that actually, the emergency landings at VLC have been taken very seriously by Ryanair and corrective measures on the matter have been implemented as from September 6, 2012, i.e. 6 weeks only after the MAD-VLC incidents.

I wish you would have mentioned this as an insider, instead of continue fuelling a childish pro-con FR feud. This forum could only become more pleasant to visit.

Unfortunately the "FR Emergency landings in VLC" topic is now closed but I am sure you could bring to us information such as about the OM-A Issue 3, Rev 8 and especially the 8.1.7.8.6
Thank you.

H.A.

Post by **sn26567** » 26 Jul 2015, 11:03

sean1982 wrote:Do I have to remind you wich type of weather hit MAD the evening of the FR diversions?

We have archived the FR diversions to VLC topic. The purpose was NOT to have it reopened elsewhere.

Please remain on topic!

sean1982 · Post by **sean1982** » 26 Jul 2015, 11:26

H.A

Maybe you then can explain me the difference between the BRU diversions yesterday and the MAD diversions?
FR takes any incident serious btw and will always implement recommendations into the operating manuals.
Unfortunatly, you try to prove your knowledge with an outdated manual (I should know, I wrote part of it) as we are back on revision 1 and there is no 8.1.7.8.6

In fact there is an 8.1.7.8 which says like I said 100 times allready that the captain should take as much fuel as needed to complete the flight safely taking conditions into consideration.

(Lastly I am not ignorant, in denial or anything else in that fashion. In fact there are multiple SOP's or corporate cultures that I question or probe into on a daily basis. It's my job to do so as part of the safety team. I do this internally and not on luchtzak.be.)

nordikcam · Post by **nordikcam** » 26 Jul 2015, 11:33

It will never finish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EBAW_flyer · Post by **EBAW_flyer** » 26 Jul 2015, 12:09

No it won't, because it was not fair to attack Ryanair because of that.

I do not like Ryanair and think its way of working are not fair, BUT regarding the "low on fuel"-status, it can happen to any airline in Europe, and this is proven once again.

You can not take unlimited fuel on all flights just because you have 0,001% chance to run low on fuel on 1 leg.
It is very difficult to decide how much extra fuel to take with you, and there are so many factors you don't have any control over as a pilot.

In case of the Transavia flight, when do you decide to divert to AMS? Do you know for sure that it will be better in AMS? You probably will have to hold in AMS as well. Maybe you have to go-around due to traffic or weather there as well.

In case of 1 thunderstorm over Brussels with low traffic, it is easy: hold until it's gone or divert to LGG/OST where you are sure there is no CB and no (or not much) traffic in front of you.

But when the shit hits the fan and weather is bad in a circle of 100 miles around your destination and there are at least 20 other planes facing the same problems, it is not that clear cut!

It CAN happen to any airline! Stop attacking Ryanair about THIS "incident" (please do so about the real unfair things they do).

Post by **sn26567** » 26 Jul 2015, 12:40

Passenger wrote:Transavia HV-5068 from Gerona to Rotterdam had to do a go-around at RTM, and then went into a holding above RTM for half an hour. The aircraft then diverted to Amsterdam, and had also had to do a go-around there because of windshear. After an additional one hour in total, they called low on fuel and landed on their third landing attempt of the day (1 at RTM, 2 at AMS).
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airpl ... a/#6e8e91c

This one made it into The Aviation Herald, with one interesting comment: "The airline reported a diversion to Brussels was not possible anymore due to low fuel."

Methinks that if the pilot had decided right in RTM to divert to BRU in the first instance rather than to AMS, there wouldn't have been any problem at all!

http://avherald.com/h?article=489d4c3f&opt=0

jan_olieslagers · Post by **jan_olieslagers** » 26 Jul 2015, 12:49

Sorry, André, but you cannot think/decide in the crew's place. They have a lot of factors to take into account, and not all those will be known publicly ; some may even be denied to exist. Also, it may well be that the comment ought to have read "a diversion ... was not possible _within_the_applicable_ruleset"
Let us be glad that everything worked out ok - if the crew deserves any bashing they'll get it from their management!

Post by **sn26567** » 26 Jul 2015, 12:53

I cannot decide in the crew's place, true, but I would think that, because of the problems affecting the aircraft (flaps, ...) there is some pressure to land in a Transavia base (AMS) rather than in a place where there isn't immediate Transavia assistance available (BRU).

jan_olieslagers · Post by **jan_olieslagers** » 26 Jul 2015, 13:01

STOP! Do not mention crew pressure or anything of the kind or we'll have yet another round of we_all_know_what by we_all_know_whom.

That's the sorry state of this forum today.

BTW those who master Dutch language may wish to follow the discussion at http://www.airwork.nl/bulletinboard/sho ... hp?t=14162 on a forum where a majority of participants are aviators.

sean1982 · Post by **sean1982** » 26 Jul 2015, 13:08

jan_olieslagers wrote:STOP! Do not mention crew pressure or anything of the kind or we'll have yet another round of we_all_know_what by we_all_know_whom.

That's the sorry state of this forum today.

BTW those who master Dutch language may wish to follow the discussion at http://www.airwork.nl/bulletinboard/sho ... hp?t=14162 on a forum where a majority of participants are aviators.

Childish remark but anyway. Just because you dont agree with what I say, doesnt mean I have no right to defend my opinion. There would be indeed quite a lot of pressure, real or perceived, to get the aircraft to a place where it wouldn't be "stuck" with this technical problem. I wouldnt be quick to judge the crew on this, however diverting to an airport with a METAR worse then then the airport you failed to land at is strange. On top of that a flapless landing in these conditions would be extra challenging. Well done to them.

Passenger · Post by **Passenger** » 26 Jul 2015, 13:13

sn26567 wrote:
Passenger wrote:Transavia HV-5068 from Gerona to Rotterdam had to do a go-around at RTM, and then went into a holding above RTM for half an hour. The aircraft then diverted to Amsterdam, and had also had to do a go-around there because of windshear. After an additional one hour in total, they called low on fuel and landed on their third landing attempt of the day (1 at RTM, 2 at AMS).
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airpl ... a/#6e8e91c
This one made it into The Aviation Herald, with one interesting comment: "The airline reported a diversion to Brussels was not possible anymore due to low fuel."
http://avherald.com/h?article=489d4c3f&opt=0

Methinks that if the pilot had decided right in RTM to divert to BRU in the first instance rather than to AMS, there wouldn't have been any problem at all!

If one looks at the time lapse on Flightradar - and if FR24 is correct, of course - they were 53 minutes longer in the air as expected:

11h09 - 525ft - go-around at RTM
11h10 - 3300ft - holding above RTM
11h35 - 5000ft - diverting to AMS
11h54 - 975ft - go-around at AMS
12h02 - landing at AMS

I've listened to the ATC comm yesterday, and the crew only reported a flaps problem and "low on fuel" just after their go-around at AMS: see also "control problems" and "speed speed speed" in the AvHerald report.

Yes, today one can say that a divertion to BRU would have been better. But when they decided to divert, they've choosen the nearest airport, and AMS was much closer for them.

Post by **sdbelgium** » 26 Jul 2015, 13:21

When diverting, it's not about the closest airport... it's the most suitable. If the weather (or any other reason) doesn't allow diversion to your commercial or "fuel" alternate > take extra fuel and divert to a suitable airport. In this case I wouldn't call Amsterdam suitable, looking at the fact they were using one runway with a lot of delays, windshear reported and winds even worse than Rotterdam.

Passenger · Post by **Passenger** » 26 Jul 2015, 13:34

sdbelgium wrote:When diverting, it's not about the closest airport... it's the most suitable. If the weather (or any other reason) doesn't allow diversion to your commercial or "fuel" alternate > take extra fuel and divert to a suitable airport. In this case I wouldn't call Amsterdam suitable, looking at the fact they were using one runway with a lot of delays, windshear reported and winds even worse than Rotterdam.

I agree, off course, but in this case BRU wasn't possible anymore - see report on The Aviation Herald:"...The airline reported a diversion to Brussels was not possible anymore due to low fuel, the safety of the flight was not compromised however, the aircraft landed safely..."

because Transavia didn't report '"due to low fuel and a flaps problem...",I guess that they indeed refer to the moment that the diversion airport was choosen, not to moment of the go-around at AMS.

Post by **sdbelgium** » 26 Jul 2015, 13:43

My understanding is a diversion to BRU wasn't possible anymore because they spent 30 min in the hold over RTM, hoping the weather would improve sufficiently. When they realised it probably wouldn't improve, their options were indeed quite limited. Still, I'm not sure I would have picked AMS...

PS May I suggest to split this topic as indeed it's not really relevant to abnormalities in Belgian airports?

sean1982 · Post by **sean1982** » 26 Jul 2015, 14:01

Passenger wrote:
because Transavia didn't report '"due to low fuel and a flaps problem...",I guess that they indeed refer to the moment that the diversion airport was choosen, not to moment of the go-around at AMS.

I dont think that RTM-BRU or RTM-AMS makes a huge difference fuel wise to be honest. So I think this "diversion to BRU was not possible" happened after their go-around at AMS and they were commited to a flapless landing there. I wonder what their final approach speed was with these winds.

Inquirer · Post by **Inquirer** » 26 Jul 2015, 15:01

For those wishing to discuss this topic, a separate thread may be appropriate.
For those wishing to exhonorate ryanair's clearly unsafe fuel policy by it, I d love them to exclain how yet another low cost airline doing the same and thus being equally close to catastrophe in less than ideL situations (and equally lucky in my eyes) can help them somehow with that?
2 wrongs never make a right, in my eyes, but okay, it seems it does for others.
Bad general attitude towards safety, in my opinion as a worried frequent traveller.
Very worrying.

sean1982 · Post by **sean1982** » 26 Jul 2015, 15:21

Inquirer wrote:For those wishing to discuss this topic, a separate thread may be appropriate.
For those wishing to exhonorate ryanair's clearly unsafe fuel policy by it, I d love them to exclain how yet another low cost airline doing the same and thus being equally close to catastrophe in less than ideL situations (and equally lucky in my eyes) can help them somehow with that?
2 wrongs never make a right, in my eyes, but okay, it seems it does for others.
Bad general attitude towards safety, in my opinion as a worried frequent traveller.
Very worrying.

Oh god, that lecturing tone again. There is nothing wrong with transavia's fuel policy, or klm's or ryanair's or any other european airline. All of you need to accept that an airplane cannot take full fuel tanks, full stop. When a train runs out of electricity, a boat or a train out of fuel due to extraordinary circumstances, they stop or float. An airplane cant do that, that's why there are a lot of safety margins build in. They clearly work, the last aircraft that crashed because it ran out if fuel was 25 years ago.

As for your cheap shot at LCC's (again)
Read this about one of your favourite star Alliance partners

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=475207bb&opt=0

3000 kg's of fuel remaining on an A380, very worrying indeed

jan_olieslagers · Post by **jan_olieslagers** » 26 Jul 2015, 15:33

the last aircraft that crashed because it ran out if fuel was 25 years ago.

Don't be more of a fool than you must. 5 minutes on google found this one from 2004:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases ... Crash.aspx
Not to mention the countless G/A crashes due to fuel starvation.

Lysexpat · Post by **Lysexpat** » 26 Jul 2015, 15:38

jan_olieslagers wrote: Don't be more of a fool than you must. 5 minutes on google found this one from 2004:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases ... Crash.aspx
Not to mention the countless G/A crashes due to fuel starvation.

This aircraft didn't ran out fuel Jan, they mis-managed crossfeed and had one full tank, whilst they were feeding the engines from an empty one.

Aviation24.be