Emirates 380 de declares an emergency and heads to YOW

[altiplano]

I guess they will get into more Canadian cities one way or another...

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Giant% ... story.html

[ILovePlanes]

Here's the flight data from FlightAware.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE2 ... /OMDB/CYYZ

[HighT5]

Looks like they went missed in yyz. Weather was rainy and a bit windy, but nothing out of the ordinary for a bad weather day.

[kevind]

Got to love the quotes from the people who saw it.

[flyincanuck]

The worst sequence in the last 12 hours:

CYYZ 012300Z 10022G27KT 2 1/2SM +RA BR OVC004 13/13 A2953 RMK SF8 SLP003

[Eric Janson]

Disclaimer:- I do not fly for Emirates but I operate long haul flights. I'm not commenting on any specifics regarding this flight as I wasn't there. I'm purely providing background information.

Flightplanning long haul flights is quite complex as there are a lot of variables - especially on a long flight.

• Weather and winds can change significantly over the course of a flight.

• Stuck at a lower level than the flightplan can rapidly cause you to burn your contingency fuel.

• Some Airlines use a re-dispatch flightplan reducing contingency fuel still further.

• Surplus fuel costs fuel to transport (4%/hour is a rough figure. 1000kg extra on a 10hour flight will cause an extra 400kg of fuel to be used. On a 15 hour flight that goes up to 600kg).

• A lot of times you will be at MTOW - cannot take any extra fuel.

And when you get to your destination.

• Low altitude manoevering burns as much fuel as in cruise.

A 11 hour long haul flight at my Airline with the A340 costs U$155,000. Fuel is the greatest single item in this figure.

Depending on company fuel policy you have to land at destination with alternate and final reserve fuel (30 mins). If your fuel reaches this figure you need to divert as per the company policy.

If at any time you are going to land with less than final reserve fuel (30 mins) than a Mayday call is mandatory. This is the policy at most Airlines.

On most of my long haul flights a number of holding patterns followed by some low altitude manoevering would put us close to the minimum diversion fuel. If we had to go around we would certainly get to this figure. A subsequent diversion would probably put us below final reseve fuel at the alternate airport.

[YYZSaabGuy]

EJ, thanks for the explanation - I always had a general understanding that tankering fuel was expensive, but the 4%/flight hour rule of thumb was something I hadn't come across before. Also appreciated the outline of diversion policy. Great post.

[teacher]

Just listen to the ATC tapes of the Air France accident in Toronto. ATC tries to issue hold clearances to long haul aircraft and they all say "no thanks we're going to our alternate".

[cgzro]

I wonder why not Trenton, they have 10,000 ft there and closer than YOW.
Or was it crap there too?

[Chaxterium]

I've often wondered as well why Trenton isn't used as an alternate more often. Is it frowned upon since it's military?

[1000islander]

I had heard it was a medical emergency...not sure when the decision was made to divert but the weather in yow was better than yz...I'll bet the crew had not done a non precision approach in a while as the only ils in ow was shut down du construction..ytr probably did not have logistics/customs to handle a380....

[carnie]

Apparently a fuel issue, was in their sector when they declared the MAYDAY- down to 6.2 tons/13668 pounds. Not much juice for those 4 thirsty engines.

[HighT5]

I'll bet the crew had not done a non precision approach in a while

It's all automated. Doesn't matter if it's ILS, NDB, GNSS. It's pretty much all the same to them.

[station60]

Disclaimer:- I do not fly for Emirates but I operate long haul flights. I'm not commenting on any specifics regarding this flight as I wasn't there. I'm purely providing background information.

Flightplanning long haul flights is quite complex as there are a lot of variables - especially on a long flight...

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.

[Beefitarian]

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.

Be thankful you don't work for one of the majority of companies that put profits ahead of anything.

I really don't care for the "experts" on here. Thanks.

Awww, come on. Give 'em a hug.

[Crown_n_Coke]

I was behind them on the apprch to YYZ and they reported a wind shear alert which required them to go-around. They then requested clrnce to YOW.

[Beefitarian]

I was behind them on the apprch to YYZ and they reported a wind shear alert which required them to go-around. They then requested clrnce to YOW.

That starts making things interesting.

How often does it have to be diverted vs. making the destination. Before the extra fuel would be less expensive. I realize the calculations will get complicated because of how much less ends up actually being left after a large amount burns off to carry the actual reserve portion.

[azimuthaviation]

Fuel in the truck is worth nothing, an expensive lesson learned by emirates. Runway behind you is worthless, a very expensive lesson they had to learn recently in Melbourne, see Emirates flight 407. I don't think I want to be in the Emirates flight that gets the next expensive lesson on why not to get so close to minimums.

[Nark]

I'll bet the crew had not done a non precision approach in a while

It's all automated. Doesn't matter if it's ILS, NDB, GNSS. It's pretty much all the same to them.

They aren't flown the same in a fully automated aircraft. ILS is a non-event, where as a LOC or NDB has a lot of elbows and armpits adjusting the FMS/guidance panel trying to keep the aircraft on profile.

Also, you have to keep in mind that as an airline, you can't land at any ol' airport. It must be an approved airport meeting whatever requirements they see fit (generally CFR availability). While I don't fly for Emirates, I'm willing to bet Trenton, albeit a long runway, isn't on said list.

[old_man]

Fuel in the truck is worth nothing,

Not to be a smart ass but it is actually worth the cost of the fuel that would have been burned to tanker in half way around the globe.

[1000islander]

"They aren't flown the same in a fully automated aircraft. ILS is a non-event, where as a LOC or NDB has a lot of elbows and armpits adjusting the FMS/guidance panel trying to keep the aircraft on profile."

Actually, in the Airbus, a "fully managed" approach has all the similarities of an ils.Ottawa was using rwy 14, either a vor or rnav.Both could be flown managed.What i was getting at, was for a 380 crew,that has probably never landed at YOW, this something a little different.

[DanJ]

Fuel in the truck is worth nothing,

Not to be a smart ass but it is actually worth the cost of the fuel that would have been burned to tanker in half way around the globe.

x the number of flights before the next time they would have needed that extra fuel.

[old_man]

Fuel in the truck is worth nothing,

Not to be a smart ass but it is actually worth the cost of the fuel that would have been burned to tanker in half way around the globe.

x the number of flights before the next time they would have needed that extra fuel.

Quite right, quite right. You can bet they have done the math on that one and figured out the odds of needing to divert vs the cost of such an action. It's all number crunching done by people a lot smarter than me.

As for safety vs profit. You can bet they have a cost amount already figured out as to the cost of losing an A380 with full pax and crew. An old quote, "You think safety is expensive, just wait till you have an accident". Much more profitable to land safely. Aviation is like any other business.....follow the rules and try to be as profitable as you can while doing so. If it means having to divert once in a while I am sure Emerites has it figured out.

[RudderWhat]

I have a few questions, and they aren't meant to be rhetorical or smart-ass.

1) Were they holding at YYZ before they attempted an approach? If so, for how long?
2) When was the emergency declared?
3) Can the pilots expect to face any disciplinary action (not suggesting that they should ... just asking)?

[complexintentions]

Well, I'm not on the 380 but I am a captain on the B777 with Emirates so I think I have a pretty decent idea of the company fuel policy. Sounds like a pretty routine situation, they held, did an approach, missed due windshear, asked for another runway, didn't get it (gee, what a surprise in YYZ!) and then diverted. When it looked like they might land below reserve fuel they declared the emergency.

Our fuel policy is straight from CAR-OP's: if you think you will land with less than final reserve fuel (30 minutes) you are required to declare a Pan. If you KNOW you will land with less than final reserve fuel, you are required to declare a Mayday. There is no recognition of terms like "fuel emergency" or the like. And given that we operate over absolutely the whole globe, a Malaysian or Russian or Indian controller whose English may be limited to standard phrases will only recognize one of those terms. Dem's da rules.

As far as the cost of diverting versus extra fuel, it very much IS calculated. The company is switching to Statistical Contingency fuel, and it's amazingly accurate. Instead of adding a standard contingency, the fuel is calculated taking all known variables into account for that exact flight, arrival time, routing, etc, with the captain having the authority to add extra for the few day-of variables. (Odd navaid outages, extreme weather events, etc). This reduces the likelihood of an expensive diversion to an acceptable level, at the same time saving far more in fuel costs than an occasional diversion costs. It's basic risk management, applying a whole lot of tailored data. The YOW landing was one of the rare diversions. Not exactly the breathless, panting excitement the press tries to make it out to be. That captain would have known EXACTLY what he was going to do and where he was going to go if he wasn't able to land in YYZ, after 1 approach, or 2, or X minutes of holding. This would have been planned many hours earlier in the flight. On that day, it was time to go somewhere else. This is standard ops in ULR flying. The rocket scientist who spouted "fuel in the truck is worth nothing, an expensive lesson learned by emirates" is only displaying his ignorance. Yes, Emirates is just learning how to operate widebody aircraft, maybe he should give them some pointers. They aren't exactly putting in minimum fuel and hoping for the best.

It is correct that Trenton is not designated as an alternate. There wouldn't even be charts for it on the aircraft. There are enough other suitable airports around the area that they do not certify every one for use. Of course if one was on fire and going to die, you could land at Trenton. Or on the 401. But that's getting a bit dramatic.

It is ignorant to suggest that the accident in Melbourne had anything to do with the length of the runway. That was a 100 ton data entry error that was not picked up. It certainly has nothing to do with fuel policy, and as much as I often dislike the company, it most assuredly does not reflect the safety culture of the airline. The pilots responsible were summarily fired. And to be honest, should have been.

And depending on what approach is available (i.e., a RNAV approach versus an NDB approach flown in basic modes), yes, a non-precision approach can be a lot more work than an ILS. We can only do full LNAV/VNAV approaches if they're charted and coded in the FMS. So this idea that "it's all automated" is not correct. Airbus or Boeing.

And lastly, Eric Janson does a good job of explaining why we can't fly around with hours of fuel remaining when we land. On a Dubai - San Francisco flight, a typical fuel load will be perhaps 125 tons. The B777 burns about 8 tons/hour nominally. So if we want an extra 15 minutes of fuel to hold at SFO, we'll need 2 tons extra. Except, each ton takes 1/2 a ton to carry it to SFO. So for 15 minutes of fuel at destination, we need THREE tons extra. And we are almost always maxed out for takeoff weight. So perhaps that can help explain why we take prudent reserves, but nothing more?

And no, the pilots won't face disciplinary action of any kind. The fuel policy worked exactly as it was intended to.