Emirates 380 de declares an emergency and heads to YOW

[Gannet167]

This is what every major airline is doing. If they're not doing it, their costs are too high and they're likely not in business. I personally don't have a problem with it either. There's a lot of useable runways for a heavy jet after they coast in from Europe before Toronto that they could drop into if required. Flying over the ocean to Ireland, I might look for a little extra. But if we're going deep into Europe I normally have no problem running on fumes to destination because there's a lot of 'outs' along the way if you need them.

The Super-8 in Trenton, the 2 customs officers that take forever to arrive, and the Timmy's in Trenton couldn't possibly handle all the passengers. There's no terminal, no fuel contract, likely nowhere to dump the lav. If there's a SAR callout (and even if there isn't) you'll wait forever to see a fuel truck. It's the last place I'd go.

What I find interesting is that they may not have approach plates for Trenton. I would have thought that a 380 or 777 would have a Gucci electronic pubs bag that has all the approaches you could ever possibly desire.

[Panama Jack]

I would suspect that YOW was their filed alternate. A smart DX department would not only pick an alternate that is "legal" (as Trenton might be) but also where things don't become a complete disaster if the aircraft goes there.

YOW has:
Ground Staff and equipment who can support the A380
Regular airline connections in case the aircraft breaks down and they have to send pax via other means to YYZ (or they need to get Emirates staff to the aircraft at its alternate in a jiffy- what, hourly AC flights?)
Customs, Immigration, etc.
Lots of hotel rooms.

Trenton has none of these amenities and considering the inconvenience of an eventual diversion (it will happen at some point) it is likely a better mitigation strategy to go to YOW than Trenton. Overall, sounds like everything went well although I feel sorry for EK crews who would have had to deal with the inevitable irrate passenger.

[Cap'n Tripps]

Just wanted to point out, as far as passenger handling goes, Trenton does have a (military) passenger terminal and security and customs facilities, albeit bare bones. If they can handle several C-130s, A310s, C-17s or C5s full of troops, I don't think it's much of a stretch that they could handle an A380 for a few hours. As far as fuel goes, the CF accepts credit cards like everyone else, they also have contract fuel and they know how to do billing.

The real issue is the PPR that's required before landing, and even then, if it's a declared emergency, all bets are off.

Was there a few weeks back after diverting enroute for a medevac. Yes, we did have a PPR. No, it didn't take long to get, even after normal business hours.

[Siddley Hawker]

How many runways at Trenton? I seem to recall just the one, so maybe they're a little leery of filing a single runway alternate.

[YYZSaabGuy]

How many runways at Trenton? I seem to recall just the one, so maybe they're a little leery of filing a single runway alternate.

Siddley, My CFS shows just one runway at CYTR, being 06/24 at 10,000' X 200'.
Of course, if you're talking Trenton/Mountain View (CPZ3), you would have a choice of:
1. 06/24L, 5,000' X 90', asphalt;
2. 06/24R, 4,800' X 60', gravel; or
3. 16/34, 3,000' X 150', crushed concrete/asphalt.
Clearly CPZ3 has a superior runway selection, although putting a 380 in there might be a bit sporty.

[Eric Janson]

Great post... but why is management sending them out with so little fuel that they need to get down to 30 minutes? That's a little crazy, and perhaps it's putting profit ahead of safety.

In the 705 I work at in the past 8 years I have never landed with less than 1hr of fuel, and that's even after going to my alternate.

Just my 2 cents, don't shoot me, I really don't care for the "experts" on here. Thanks.

Here are some real world figures for the A340 flying into EGLL (London Heathrow)

Alt Fuel 2000kg 0:13
Reserve 2535kg 0:30
Ctg 1000kg 0:13
Hld Dest 1722kg 0:20

Doing a straight in approach (no delay) would see us landing with 7257kg or 1:16 remaining. Because it is busy we almost always have to hold hence the 20 minutes holding fuel. There is a NOTAM about this.

We would divert when fuel reaches 4535kg

We would declare a mayday if we were going to land with less than 2535kg

I have never had to divert for low fuel (only for weather). The system works. Fuel at my company is at Captain's discretion - I will take more if I feel it is needed. I have never heard a word about any extra fuel I have taken.

A lot of our long haul flights are at MTOW and are payload restricted. In these cases we can't take extra fuel.

[TopperHarley]

Alt Fuel 2000kg 0:13
Reserve 2535kg 0:30
Ctg 1000kg 0:13
Hld Dest 1722kg 0:20

Is this Hold Dest specific to LHR or is this fuel in addition to the "Final" (on MCDU) fuel/ 30 mins @ 1500AGL?

[cgzro]

Just seems strange to me to pick a runway 20 minutes further away when you are so low on fuel its a mayday. Cant see how pax / customs or any other consideration would trump safely putting plane on the ground as quickly as possible.

We must be missing something like crap weather in Trenton.

[tbaylx]

Just seems strange to me to pick a runway 20 minutes further away when you are so low on fuel its a mayday. Cant see how pax / customs or any other consideration would trump safely putting plane on the ground as quickly as possible.

We must be missing something like crap weather in Trenton.

YOW is the preferred alternate for EK YYZ flights. Their flight plans would have all the fuel and trip times etc, as well as the route manual having the YOW data and contact #'s etc. When they held for long enough in YYZ and headed to their alternate guess they dropped below min arrival fuel and would have declared the emergency as per their company procedures. It would have also ensured priority handling and arrival with ATC which you would not get if you didn't declare an emergency. Anytime you are possibly going to land below min fuel (which is 30 min) it's an automatic PAN call. If you are going to land below its a MAYDAY. Just because you declare a fuel emergency doesn't mean you are about to run out of fuel and crash, unlike what the media would have you believe. Simply below their min fuel on arrival is all, still enough left in the tanks for a safe approach and arrival in YOW and filed alternate without having to divert to a nearest airport.

They wouldn't have considered Trenton at all unless YOW was out or they didn't have enough fuel to make it to their primary alternate for whatever reason (normally when they hit min diversion fuel they are on their way to alternate)

Here's the "official" version..they simply declared the emergency to ensure priority handling with ATC...amazing that the media can actually make news out of this.... Headlines!!! " BAD WEATHER IN TORONTO FORCES AIRCRAFT TO SAFELY DIVERT TO NORMAL ALTERNATE AIRPORT "!!! STORY AT 6!

"The crew decided to divert to Ottawa declaring emergency indicating they might need to cut into their final fuel reserve of 30 minutes in case of any delays. The aircraft climbed to FL230 enroute to Ottawa,on approach to Ottawa the crew reported 6.3 tons of fuel/14000 lbs of fuel on board and cancelled their emergency under the condition that they were vectored directly for a RNAV approach to runway 14. The aircraft landed safely on runway 14 about 50 minutes after aborting the approach in Toronto with more fuel than final reserve remaining..."

EK actually has a pretty generous fuel policy, often taking considerable amounts above minimums to allow for holds and delays into DXB etc. Also crews are free to upload extra above flight plan if they deem it necessary. This is simply a non event that occurs relatively often in ULH operations.

If there is any story here it's how long the crew's duty day was by the time they finally made it to YYZ...

[complexintentions]

Just because you declare a fuel emergency doesn't mean you are about to run out of fuel and crash, unlike what the media would have you believe. Simply below their min fuel on arrival is all, still enough left in the tanks for a safe approach and arrival in YOW and filed alternate without having to divert to a nearest airport.

Exactly. The Mayday call is to ensure priority handling, because now there really is no more time to dick around, it's time to land. No ambiguity, no ignoring it by ATC, no misunderstanding. There have been enough famous disasters caused by crews with low fuel understating their condition. (Famous case, Avianca FLT 52)

cgzro,

Hope this helps to explain why, just because a Mayday was declared doesn't mean they have to pick the nearest airport. The declaration is a CAR-OPs requirement, and makes a lot of sense. But supporting an aircraft the size of an A380, A340, B777 just doesn't make sense to head to a restricted military airfield as a first choice.

And here's some actual fuel figures for the B777-300ER, for a DXB-CAN flight:

Alt Fuel 3297kg 00:27
Reserve 3102 00:30
CONT 3.0% 1366kg 00:11

So basically we have 11 minutes of fuel to take into account holding, not getting our desired level, etc. And if we divert, we need to land with 3.1 tons. If we do divert, if we think we might land with less than that, it's a Pan call. If we KNOW we will land with less than 3.1 tons, it's a Mayday. That's the policy. We also have the ability to "commit to destination", which means if certain conditions are met, we can elect to land at destination with less than our alternate fuel (but never below our final 30 minute reserve).

Pretty standard across the ULR industry.

[complexintentions]

An Emirates Airlines Airbus A380-800, registration A6-EDD performing flight EK-241 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Toronto,ON (Canada) with 530 people on board, was on approach to Toronto, when the aircraft was instructed to enter a holding due to traffic congestion as result of weather. After holding for about 25 minutes the aircraft was vectored for a final approach to Toronto's runway 15R and was cleared to land on runway 15R, however, the crew needed to go around from about 600 feet AGL due to a wind shear alert, takeoff clearance for another aircraft on 15L was cancelled due to the go-around and a landing clearance on runway 15L was cancelled as well prompting another aircraft to go-around. The crew decided to divert to Ottawa declaring emergency indicating they might need to cut into their final fuel reserve of 30 minutes in case of any delays. The aircraft climbed to FL230 enroute to Ottawa,on approach to Ottawa the crew reported 6.3 tons of fuel/14000 lbs of fuel on board and cancelled their emergency under the condition that they were vectored directly for a RNAV approach to runway 14. The aircraft landed safely on runway 14 about 50 minutes after aborting the approach in Toronto with more fuel than final reserve remaining and after coming to a stop discovered they needed to backtrack the runway all the way long to be able to turn off to the apron causing another approach to Ottawa to be delayed.

Weather conditions at Toronto Airport were difficult throughout Jun 1st, tower reported winds from 110 degrees around 30 knots gusting up to 40 knots and there were multiple wind shear alerts, also instructing a number of arrivals to go around due to oncoming strong gusts. As a result, a number of aircraft involving domestic and international arrivals needed to declare minimum fuel.

The Aviation Herald would normally not report this occurrence as it is basically a weather related diversion and the crew remained on the safe course of action at all times declaring emergency as a precaution only to avoid any delays during their diversion and to avoid of getting into fuel trouble indeed as result of such delays. However, due to widespread media reports suggesting the aircraft nearly crashed, ran out fuel or landed at 5000 lbs of fuel remaining below final fuel reserve The Aviation Herald decided to cover this flight.

Bolding is mine. Copied from PPrune. 'Nuff said already?!? God I hate the media and other ignorant people.

[Gannet167]

Trenton may handle the logistics of a few dozen people, even a hundred from time to time, but they could never manage 500+, particularly without a a heads up a few days ahead of time. In an emergency, they'll take anyone. But the "terminal" is about the size of your average McDonalds. They do have a few airplanes on the ramp, but only one of them carries any sizable number of passengers and normally picks up and delivers the large pax loads to other airports, not in and out of Trenton, but if they do, not without a massive preparation. Trenton is only 12 or so minutes from Ottawa anyway. Since Ottawa is the planned alternate and fuel is carried for it - it makes sense to go there.

[Eric Janson]

Is this Hold Dest specific to LHR or is this fuel in addition to the "Final" (on MCDU) fuel/ 30 mins @ 1500AGL?

This is LHR specific - we don't have this fuel when flying to our other European destinations.

[golden hawk]

This crew handled this situation perfectly.

End of thread.

[IFRATC]

I was working that afternoon/evening. This is nothing new. You people are making something out of nothing. We were landing in a runway 15 configuration which obviously means reduced acceptance rates for yyz. So yes there was holding. Yes there was some weather and wet runways as well. Nothing new. Diversions to alternates occur frequently when we are metering into yyz. Compounding the approach was the wind shear alert. They didn't want to go back to the hold to wait it out due to fuel.
Simple as that...
IFRATC

[DanJ]

Just for curiosity's sake, could London (YXU) be used by the 380 if needed? The longest runway is about 8800 feet. Not sure what the 380 weighs when it's in a low fuel state like this story, or how much fuel it would take on in a diversion like this. But I do remember the AN124 flying out of here with that locomotive on board some years ago, with a takeoff weight upwards of 800,000 pounds. Or would it be a case of they could if they really needed to but there are very few reasons YXU would be preferable to YOW? I guess the same could be asked about YHM, which does have 10,000'.

[Eric Janson]

Just for curiosity's sake, could London (YXU) be used by the 380 if needed? The longest runway is about 8800 feet. Not sure what the 380 weighs when it's in a low fuel state like this story, or how much fuel it would take on in a diversion like this. But I do remember the AN124 flying out of here with that locomotive on board some years ago, with a takeoff weight upwards of 800,000 pounds. Or would it be a case of they could if they really needed to but there are very few reasons YXU would be preferable to YOW? I guess the same could be asked about YHM, which does have 10,000'.

@Danj

I don't fly the A380 or fly for Emirates but selecting an alternate airport is a bit more complicated than simply looking at runway length.

All runways have a load limit (PCN number). Just because it is a long runway does not mean it can take the weight of a large aircraft.
Even if the runway has a high enough PCN number the taxiways and apron may not.
There may also be obstacle issues during taxi. The aircraft I fly has a 60.3m wingspan.
There may be issues with taxiway width or the aircraft not being able negotiate a corner. There is a lot of distance between the nose wheel and the main gear on larger aircraft.
There may not be suitable ground equipment present (stairs etc.).
There may be an issue with the PAPI/VASIS not giving enough wheel clearance over the threshold.
The non precision approach may be not suitable. We are not allowed to fly level at MDA. We fly a constant decent and treat MDA like DA. Not all non precision approaches are set up this way.
And then there are commercial reasons for selecting an alternate (availability of alternative flights, hotels etc).

Most Airlines have an entire department that looks into these things.

[TheCheez]

Trenton might be closer and a good runway, but as someone who calls it home let me assure you dropping 500 people in their lap with 20 min notice would be a terrible idea.

[DanJ]

Thanks for the information.

Just for curiosity's sake, could London (YXU) be used by the 380 if needed? The longest runway is about 8800 feet. Not sure what the 380 weighs when it's in a low fuel state like this story, or how much fuel it would take on in a diversion like this. But I do remember the AN124 flying out of here with that locomotive on board some years ago, with a takeoff weight upwards of 800,000 pounds. Or would it be a case of they could if they really needed to but there are very few reasons YXU would be preferable to YOW? I guess the same could be asked about YHM, which does have 10,000'.

@Danj

I don't fly the A380 or fly for Emirates but selecting an alternate airport is a bit more complicated than simply looking at runway length.

All runways have a load limit (PCN number). Just because it is a long runway does not mean it can take the weight of a large aircraft.
Even if the runway has a high enough PCN number the taxiways and apron may not.
There may also be obstacle issues during taxi. The aircraft I fly has a 60.3m wingspan.
There may be issues with taxiway width or the aircraft not being able negotiate a corner. There is a lot of distance between the nose wheel and the main gear on larger aircraft.
There may not be suitable ground equipment present (stairs etc.).
There may be an issue with the PAPI/VASIS not giving enough wheel clearance over the threshold.
The non precision approach may be not suitable. We are not allowed to fly level at MDA. We fly a constant decent and treat MDA like DA. Not all non precision approaches are set up this way.
And then there are commercial reasons for selecting an alternate (availability of alternative flights, hotels etc).

Most Airlines have an entire department that looks into these things.

[Biz]

Just for curiosity's sake, could London (YXU) be used by the 380 if needed? The longest runway is about 8800 feet. Not sure what the 380 weighs when it's in a low fuel state like this story, or how much fuel it would take on in a diversion like this. But I do remember the AN124 flying out of here with that locomotive on board some years ago, with a takeoff weight upwards of 800,000 pounds. Or would it be a case of they could if they really needed to but there are very few reasons YXU would be preferable to YOW? I guess the same could be asked about YHM, which does have 10,000'.

Considering the Aircraft YXU has seen in the past including last year the AN-124 and for years the C5 Galaxy for airshows it def could handle the 380 if need be.