5 ms·

Ran out of fuel after 3 aborted landings, pilots perhaps distracted by an engine failure?

by krona 6y ago

ashtonkem 6y ago
3 aborted landings is a lot. Isn’t it considered good policy to redirect after a few aborted landings? (Not a Pilot).
- pirocks 6y ago
  I don't think there where three aborted landings. My understanding is there was only one go around. This is backed up by flightradar24's altitude graph: https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1263800350060003328/photo/1 https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1263800350060003328... Generally there are alternate airports chosen for if a plane can't land at its desired destination + fuel for multiple aborted landings
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Isn’t it considered good policy to redirect after a few aborted landings? If weather is below minimums. But an airliner doing more than 1 go-around in good weather is something that I've never heard of - it means the pilots don't know how to control airspeed.
  - cjbprime 6y ago
    Seems they couldn't get their nose gear down.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      In US training, generally it's recommended to configure the airplane for landing, and if the nosewheel collapses, just ride it down. Because airplanes land on their main (back wheels) first, the nosewheel is not considered very important, and the incident is considered to be very survivable. However, in foreign countries, there can be a greater fear of career repercussions for damaging equipment or delaying flights. This was also seen in the SFO Asiana accident that a foreign crew just fell apart in an atypical scenario: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 Once in a while in the US you hear of a pilot trying to land firmly to snap the nosewheel into position, but it would be unusual for them to take off and try it again, esp. with passengers. Some factors are: the pilot doesn't trust the gear indicators for some reason, or they decide burning off fuel before landing is safer, or the airport doesn't have adequate firefighting equipment or a nearby hospital. Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot, small airplane maintenance test pilot.
      - cjbprime 6y ago
        Just curious: is it possible that they knew they had a gear malfunction and didn't know whether it was nose or main, when they decided to go around?
soapboxrocket 6y ago
Based on the photos of the damage to the engines the aborted landings didn't go well. https://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0
AdrianB1 6y ago
There is a single go-around; the plane burst in flames, there was enough fuel for that so there was enough fuel to run the engines, the minimum reserve is 30 minutes, the go-around takes a lot less.
- aaronmdjones 6y ago
  Planes have a lot more combustible material on them than just jet fuel. Engine oil and oxygen canisters for a start.
ertemplin 6y ago
The FAA and ICAO regulation for flights above 18,000 feet is that you need to have enough fuel to reach your destination, an appropriate alternate airport, and cruise for an additional 45 minutes. I doubt they ran out of fuel after 3 attempts to land at the original destination airport.
- stevehawk 6y ago
  I'd love for a heavy pilot to comment on the math involved. Fuel burn on takeoff is a lot more than cruise. I'd assume ~3x as much. Throw in the amount of time to fly around a pattern and that 45 minutes doesn't give a lot of flexibility if you start botching landings.
  - asdfadsfgfdda 6y ago
    This may surprise you, but the fuel burn for holding is essentially constant vs altitude. What suffers is the range, flying at low altitude is much worse for fuel range because at high altitude, true air speed increases for a given indicated air speed. Page 17 shows ~5000 lb/hr at mid weight: https://www.air-septimanie.com/pdf/technical/A320/en/A320PERFORMANCE.pdf https://www.air-septimanie.com/pdf/technical/A320/en/A320PER...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- RandomBacon 6y ago
  For a large jet, a single go-around can take about 12 minutes. Longer if they're having problems turning the plane due to hydraulic issues.

Ran out of fuel after 3 aborted landings, pilots perhaps distracted by an engine failure?

by krona 6y ago

Ran out of fuel after 3 aborted landings, pilots perhaps distracted by an engine failure?

ashtonkem 6y ago

3 aborted landings is a lot. Isn’t it considered good policy to redirect after a few aborted landings? (Not a Pilot).

pirocks 6y ago
I don't think there where three aborted landings. My understanding is there was only one go around. This is backed up by flightradar24's altitude graph: https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1263800350060003328/photo/1 https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1263800350060003328... Generally there are alternate airports chosen for if a plane can't land at its desired destination + fuel for multiple aborted landings
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Isn’t it considered good policy to redirect after a few aborted landings? If weather is below minimums. But an airliner doing more than 1 go-around in good weather is something that I've never heard of - it means the pilots don't know how to control airspeed.
- cjbprime 6y ago
  Seems they couldn't get their nose gear down.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    In US training, generally it's recommended to configure the airplane for landing, and if the nosewheel collapses, just ride it down. Because airplanes land on their main (back wheels) first, the nosewheel is not considered very important, and the incident is considered to be very survivable. However, in foreign countries, there can be a greater fear of career repercussions for damaging equipment or delaying flights. This was also seen in the SFO Asiana accident that a foreign crew just fell apart in an atypical scenario: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 Once in a while in the US you hear of a pilot trying to land firmly to snap the nosewheel into position, but it would be unusual for them to take off and try it again, esp. with passengers. Some factors are: the pilot doesn't trust the gear indicators for some reason, or they decide burning off fuel before landing is safer, or the airport doesn't have adequate firefighting equipment or a nearby hospital. Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot, small airplane maintenance test pilot.
    - cjbprime 6y ago
      Just curious: is it possible that they knew they had a gear malfunction and didn't know whether it was nose or main, when they decided to go around?

soapboxrocket 6y ago

Based on the photos of the damage to the engines the aborted landings didn't go well. https://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0

AdrianB1 6y ago

There is a single go-around; the plane burst in flames, there was enough fuel for that so there was enough fuel to run the engines, the minimum reserve is 30 minutes, the go-around takes a lot less.

aaronmdjones 6y ago
Planes have a lot more combustible material on them than just jet fuel. Engine oil and oxygen canisters for a start.

ertemplin 6y ago

The FAA and ICAO regulation for flights above 18,000 feet is that you need to have enough fuel to reach your destination, an appropriate alternate airport, and cruise for an additional 45 minutes. I doubt they ran out of fuel after 3 attempts to land at the original destination airport.

stevehawk 6y ago
I'd love for a heavy pilot to comment on the math involved. Fuel burn on takeoff is a lot more than cruise. I'd assume ~3x as much. Throw in the amount of time to fly around a pattern and that 45 minutes doesn't give a lot of flexibility if you start botching landings.
- asdfadsfgfdda 6y ago
  This may surprise you, but the fuel burn for holding is essentially constant vs altitude. What suffers is the range, flying at low altitude is much worse for fuel range because at high altitude, true air speed increases for a given indicated air speed. Page 17 shows ~5000 lb/hr at mid weight: https://www.air-septimanie.com/pdf/technical/A320/en/A320PERFORMANCE.pdf https://www.air-septimanie.com/pdf/technical/A320/en/A320PER...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
RandomBacon 6y ago
For a large jet, a single go-around can take about 12 minutes. Longer if they're having problems turning the plane due to hydraulic issues.