SAA delayed reporting near-disaster at Cape Town airport by 8 days

[Grant]

And I fly with them for the very last time in exactly 4 hour and 55 minutes. They are always late and full of excuses... #RealityCheck #FactsDoMatter

i have been flying with saa for well over 30yrs - out of choice, both local and international.
at a rough estimate, about 35 international and 120 local.

during the same period, also used many many other airlines.

there have been delays, but very few - these are mostly as a result of a domino / knock-on affect of other air traffic activity, either on the ground, or in the air - beyond the control of saa.
level of service has always been good and the planes in very good condition.
i have beyond 100% confidence in their flight crews.

there are others with a higher level of service - emirates stands out.

however this incident has pretty much shattered my previously held confidence in the airline, not their flight crews, but the airline itself.
i have to go to the uk for a few days end of next month, it is going to be the first time in decades that instead of saa being my 1st choice, but instead will be last.

 

[Grant]

Where is @Grant when you need him?

The Duncan Gillespie article seems comprehensive and should easily be found but includes this:

"I can’t go into it; I can’t provide details, but one man, a highly experienced pilot, who involved himself in this terrifying ordeal, was all that came between this aircraft getting back on the ground with it’s engines running and the unthinkable scenario of an Airbus A320 airliner being in the air with no fuel in the tanks."

Who was this?

i'm standing right behind you - breathing down your neck.

but am unsure why you may be looking for me - i'm not a pilot.
i can help if you need some info on cardioplegia, post-perfusion syndrome, roller vs centrifugal cardio-pulmonary bypass pumps , ecmo etc - but not flying an airbus

 

[dillinger]

Nothing new when it comes to not reporting to SACAA.

Remeber in 24 Feb 2021, A340 that nearly crashed on takeoff. They did not report it with in the 72 hours of it happening.

Friend of mine flew for SAA for 40 years, he retired about 7 years ago, was the only pilot left at SAA that still had the 707 on his pilots license. He told me that none of the pilots were current. The safety systems kicked in and prevented the plane from going into a stall, this obviously put a huge strain on the motors and they automatically sent messages to the manufactures who are the owners as well (sometimes motors are only rented). Messages also when to Airbus automatically. When Airbus asked what happened SAA said "Nothing?!?" when presented with the data SAA said "Obviously the computers are lying"

 

[wingnut771]

Nothing new when it comes to not reporting to SACAA.

Remeber in 24 Feb 2021, A340 that nearly crashed on takeoff. They did not report it with in the 72 hours of it happening.

Friend of mine flew for SAA for 40 years, he retired about 7 years ago, was the only pilot left at SAA that still had the 707 on his pilots license. He told me that none of the pilots were current. The safety systems kicked in and prevented the plane from going into a stall, this obviously put a huge strain on the motors and they automatically sent messages to the manufactures who are the owners as well (sometimes motors are only rented). Messages also when to Airbus automatically. When Airbus asked what happened SAA said "Nothing?!?" when presented with the data SAA said "Obviously the computers are lying"

You see, CAA is SAA tjommie.

 

[RomTuringia]

Nothing new when it comes to not reporting to SACAA.

Remeber in 24 Feb 2021, A340 that nearly crashed on takeoff. They did not report it with in the 72 hours of it happening.

Friend of mine flew for SAA for 40 years, he retired about 7 years ago, was the only pilot left at SAA that still had the 707 on his pilots license. He told me that none of the pilots were current. The safety systems kicked in and prevented the plane from going into a stall, this obviously put a huge strain on the motors and they automatically sent messages to the manufactures who are the owners as well (sometimes motors are only rented). Messages also when to Airbus automatically. When Airbus asked what happened SAA said "Nothing?!?" when presented with the data SAA said "Obviously the computers are lying"

And you tell me this 20 minutes before I board....

 

[wingnut771]

And you tell me this 20 minutes before I board....

Dont worry, the plane flies itself.

 

[RomTuringia]

Not the Chinese characters

 

[Craig_]

Why were you supporting a criminal organisation?

You support that same criminal organization with your taxes. The few times I've used SAA over the last 2 or 3 years they were much better, and cheaper than the low cost alternatives. And on time, in fact on the way up they were ahead of schedule. Which is wonderful because I only fly for work.

 

[wingnut771]

You support that same criminal organization with your taxes. The few times I've used SAA over the last 2 or 3 years they were much better, and cheaper than the low cost alternatives. And on time, in fact on the way up they were ahead of schedule. Which is wonderful because I only fly for work.

Yes, I don't have much choice in that. Like before SAA was sold for R50, they used to fly exclusively to some airports so you didn't have a choice to use them.

I never said they weren't nice when flying with them.

 

[wingnut771]

Not the Chinese characters

 

[ponder]

Not the Chinese characters

About a fifth of the world's population will understand those.

 

[Rumple4skin]

I don't have the facts, but it seems the main problem is that you have an airline crew who knew the weather at their destination AND alternate were bad, yet they couldn't think far enough to load more fuel which would cater for more approaches or divert somewhere further away with better weather.

Duncan and his mates on the FB FlyAfrica group usually know what's happening and have their ears on the ground, but they are very biased and would love to see SAA fall. Still believe most of what was said by them and trust them a 100 times more than any news coming from an airline which takes 8 days to report such a serious matter.

You need to declare mayday fuel when calculated usable fuel will be less than final reserve (30 min) fuel upon landing at the nearest suitable airport. Declaring a mayday will involve a lot of paperwork afterwards, including from the ATC side. Which makes the delay in reporting it even more questionable as they wouldn't have been able to hide it. Unless they didn't declare a mayday, which would be crazy.

 

[wingnut771]

I don't have the facts, but it seems the main problem is that you have an airline crew who knew the weather at their destination AND alternate were bad, yet they couldn't think far enough to load more fuel which would cater for more approaches or divert somewhere further away with better weather.

Duncan and his mates on the FB FlyAfrica group usually know what's happening and have their ears on the ground, but they are very biased and would love to see SAA fall. Still believe most of what was said by them and trust them a 100 times more than any news coming from an airline which takes 8 days to report such a serious matter.

You need to declare mayday fuel when calculated usable fuel will be less than final reserve (30 min) fuel upon landing at the nearest suitable airport. Declaring a mayday will involve a lot of paperwork afterwards, including from the ATC side. Which makes the delay in reporting it even more questionable as they wouldn't have been able to hide it. Unless they didn't declare a mayday, which would be crazy.

Viva Affirmative Action Viva!

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

The alternate for CT is George, and I believe there are issues at that airport.

that's under normal circumstances though?

in a true emergency there are nearer options, perhaps the half upgraded Cape Winelands Airport, hell even Ysterplaat which has roughly the same length as Cape Town International's secondary/crosswind runway

 

[Gordon_R]

I don't have the facts, but it seems the main problem is that you have an airline crew who knew the weather at their destination AND alternate were bad, yet they couldn't think far enough to load more fuel which would cater for more approaches or divert somewhere further away with better weather.

Duncan and his mates on the FB FlyAfrica group usually know what's happening and have their ears on the ground, but they are very biased and would love to see SAA fall. Still believe most of what was said by them and trust them a 100 times more than any news coming from an airline which takes 8 days to report such a serious matter.

You need to declare mayday fuel when calculated usable fuel will be less than final reserve (30 min) fuel upon landing at the nearest suitable airport. Declaring a mayday will involve a lot of paperwork afterwards, including from the ATC side. Which makes the delay in reporting it even more questionable as they wouldn't have been able to hide it. Unless they didn't declare a mayday, which would be crazy.

Flight planning and fuel load calculations are not the sole responsibility of the pilots. Each airline has a ground crew that do most of the planning, and they bear much of the responsibility. Of course the captain has the final decision, but they can't just say: 'please load another 5 tons of fuel because I don't feel comfortable today'.

See:

Flight planning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Flight planning typically includes route selection, fuel calculation, alternate aerodrome planning, weight and balance considerations, and an assessment of meteorological conditions.

A licensed flight dispatcher or flight operations officer is required by law to carry out flight planning and flight watch tasks in many commercial operating environments (e.g., US FAR §121, Canadian regulations). These regulations vary by country but more and more countries require their airline operators to employ such personnel.

 

[wingnut771]

Flight planning and fuel load calculations are not the sole responsibility of the pilots. Each airline has a ground crew that do most of the planning, and they bear much of the responsibility. Of course the captain has the final decision, but they can't just say: 'please load another 5 tons of fuel because I don't feel comfortable today'.

See:

Flight planning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How was the vomit comet I flew from EL to DBN able to fly to DBN, circle for 30 mins waiting for storm, then fly half way back to EL then divert to JHB and have enough fuel?
iirc we took off at 7pm and landed at almost midnight.

 

[Segg]

please load another 5 tons of fuel because I don't feel comfortable today'.

See:

Flight planning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The safe operators don't usually question this kind of decision especially when the weather is kak. As long as your regulated limits are within limits, then you just use the fuel on the leg back with a tiny (<100kg / hr) consumption penalty. This often happens with tankering for example, in which case the operator asks the crew to take the multiple tons more.

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Very interesting read

https://twitter.com/x/status/2059187994813227090

https://twitter.com/x/status/2059203087890264318

 

[Rumple4skin]

Of course the captain has the final decision, but they can't just say: 'please load another 5 tons of fuel because I don't feel comfortable today'.

See:

Flight planning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can load as much extra fuel as you want if you have a good reason, or if your dispatcher has been sleeping and should be fired (maybe the case here?). Your airline should allow you as PIC to have that authority. If you load too much extra too often for no good reason then you can expect tea and no biscuits though to explain why you do that.

You don't have to talk to the dispatcher for this either. When you get to the plane then it will have been loaded to a stand by fuel figure (a little bit less than planned fuel). Once you get the final zero fuel weight (which usually differs from the planned weight) only then do you advise the refueller the final amount of fuel you want, ie. no dispatcher or approval needed. This process is followed as to not cause any refueling delays.

 

[Gordon_R]

You can load as much extra fuel as you want if you have a good reason, or if your dispatcher has been sleeping and should be fired (maybe the case here?). Your airline should allow you as PIC to have that authority. If you load too much extra too often for no good reason then you can expect tea and no biscuits though to explain why you do that.

You don't have to talk to the dispatcher for this either. When you get to the plane then it will have been loaded to a stand by fuel figure (a little bit less than planned fuel). Once you get the final zero fuel weight (which usually differs from the planned weight) only then do you advise the refueller the final amount of fuel you want, ie. no dispatcher or approval needed. This process is followed as to not cause any refueling delays.

You are absolutely correct about the process, and the captain's authority. However, for the purposes of this thread you left out a critical part: If the passenger and cargo load, plus the fuel requested, exceeds the maximum takeoff weight, then some tough choices have to be made; like bumping off a few passengers who have already boarded, or leaving their luggage behind. This is not a decision that can be made solely by the captain, which was my original point.

Most aircraft are designed with the capacity to carry more fuel and load added together than the MTOW, which is a hard limit that must not be exceeded, and requires tradeoffs. Specifically an A320 can carry fuel to fly nonstop for 10 hours, but only with half the normal load. I'm sure actual pilots know this, but for the rest of us it helps to illustrate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_takeoff_weight