airtraffic

Author Topic: Austrian Flight 94 Smoke in the Cabin  (Read 12713 times)

Offline semperflyer797

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Austrian Flight 94 Smoke in the Cabin
« on: April 21, 2015, 10:56:37 AM »
 On April 19th Austrian Flight 94, a Boeing 777-200 from Washington Dulles international to Vienna was forced to make an emergency landing back into Dulles due to smoke coming from an oven during their initial climb.  The clip isn't the most interesting thing to listen to other than to note that the aircrew and ATC weren't exactly on the same page.  In fact the pilot at one point is heard telling ATC to basically leave them alone because they want to run some checklists.  Later in the landing sequence the crew are advised that fire rescue will not be able to get out to runway 19C for some reason, and are asked if they would like to switch to 19L, which they decline.  Lastly it seemed a little odd that the tower tried to squeeze out one last departure before the Austrian flight landed.  Luckily everything worked out fine but had there been another problem with one of these aircraft it could have gone down hill in a hurry.



Offline VASAviation

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
    • REAL ATC Transcripted Videos
Re: Austrian Flight 94 Smoke in the Cabin
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2015, 03:41:43 PM »
Working on a video about this!

Thank you very much for sharing!! :lol:

Offline jdflyer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Austrian Flight 94 Smoke in the Cabin
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2015, 09:13:39 PM »
Can anyone explain why fire/rescue would not be able to get out to 19C?

Offline civic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Austrian Flight 94 Smoke in the Cabin
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2015, 10:05:02 PM »
That controller was terrible - Asking for the pilot to convert 52,000kg to pounds while dealing with smoke in cabin!! Do it yourself! Asking him to 'CLIMB' after the pilot telling him he wants to stay at 4000ft, Then asking him (while all set up and briefed for 19C) to change the approach!! Giving him stupid info like light rain at field and you'll join localiser at xxxxxxx. You could tell the pilot was getting a bit pissed off and rightly so. I think he was trying too much to be a hero. The best part was when he asked the pilot if he "wanted to put the gear down to burn off fuel".. Let the f**king captain fly the plane!

This guy needs to go back to ATC school and learn how to deal with emergencies!

Offline SirIsaac726

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Austrian Flight 94 Smoke in the Cabin
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2015, 11:36:13 PM »
That controller was terrible - Asking for the pilot to convert 52,000kg to pounds while dealing with smoke in cabin!! Do it yourself! Asking him to 'CLIMB' after the pilot telling him he wants to stay at 4000ft, Then asking him (while all set up and briefed for 19C) to change the approach!! Giving him stupid info like light rain at field and you'll join localiser at xxxxxxx. You could tell the pilot was getting a bit pissed off and rightly so. I think he was trying too much to be a hero. The best part was when he asked the pilot if he "wanted to put the gear down to burn off fuel".. Let the f**king captain fly the plane!

This guy needs to go back to ATC school and learn how to deal with emergencies!

Just curious, are you a controller?

You are correct, asking for the aircraft to convert to pounds was probably unnecessary (in my opinion). I don't know of any reason why they would need the FR in pounds directly from the pilot considering the 7110.65 requires fuel remaining in time. Granted, I don't know what the local SOP is but they probably could have done a conversion themselves later.

As for asking him to climb, obviously there was a reason he was asking for it and just from the recording, I personally didn't hear why but he wouldn't just randomly ask if he can climb. No harm in asking and if the pilot turns it down, so be it.

Regarding all the approach information...

1. If you listen to the recording, the Tower clearly told approach new information that they were unaware of originally that the aircraft did actually need to know - the ARFF could not make it onto 19C so if they were going to require immediate assistance on the runway, it would not be possible for the runway that Austrian 94 desired. But advising the aircraft of that was absolutely the right thing to do.

2. Light rain at the field is hardly stupid info. Any change in weather on an aircraft's route of flight is need-to-know information. And, while I obvisouly wasn't there, my assumption as to why the controller was giving all the extra approach information was because this was a foreign carrier declaring an emergency and diverting to an airport that wouldn't have been a normal planned alternate for them. The controller is trying to be helpful by making sure they have all the info they would need to get setup for an unplanned approach. I suppose you could debate whether or not some of the info was too much, but I never interpreted the pilot's words or tone as "getting pissed."

I will say that asking about "putting the gear down to burn off fuel" was something I haven't heard before, but then again, I'm not an approach controller, so what the hell do I know?

A controller's duty in an emergency is to obtain enough information from the aircraft to provide whatever assistance they will need. I'd say this controller did that.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 11:39:30 PM by SirIsaac787 »

Offline VASAviation

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
    • REAL ATC Transcripted Videos
Re: Austrian Flight 94 Smoke in the Cabin
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2015, 02:47:51 AM »
Hey guys!

Working on a video about this I receive the Tower frequency with lot of static and can't hear anything at all...

Could anyone help me out with this to do the transcription? Via posting, PM or mail? It'd be so appreciated, thanks!!

By the way, I think the ATC did his job as better as possible. Giving information everytime and trying to do things easier for Austrian.

Offline semperflyer797

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: Austrian Flight 94 Smoke in the Cabin
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2015, 09:02:09 AM »
That controller was terrible - Asking for the pilot to convert 52,000kg to pounds while dealing with smoke in cabin!! Do it yourself! Asking him to 'CLIMB' after the pilot telling him he wants to stay at 4000ft, Then asking him (while all set up and briefed for 19C) to change the approach!! Giving him stupid info like light rain at field and you'll join localiser at xxxxxxx. You could tell the pilot was getting a bit pissed off and rightly so. I think he was trying too much to be a hero. The best part was when he asked the pilot if he "wanted to put the gear down to burn off fuel".. Let the f**king captain fly the plane!

This guy needs to go back to ATC school and learn how to deal with emergencies!

Just curious, are you a controller?

You are correct, asking for the aircraft to convert to pounds was probably unnecessary (in my opinion). I don't know of any reason why they would need the FR in pounds directly from the pilot considering the 7110.65 requires fuel remaining in time. Granted, I don't know what the local SOP is but they probably could have done a conversion themselves later.

As for asking him to climb, obviously there was a reason he was asking for it and just from the recording, I personally didn't hear why but he wouldn't just randomly ask if he can climb. No harm in asking and if the pilot turns it down, so be it.

Regarding all the approach information...

1. If you listen to the recording, the Tower clearly told approach new information that they were unaware of originally that the aircraft did actually need to know - the ARFF could not make it onto 19C so if they were going to require immediate assistance on the runway, it would not be possible for the runway that Austrian 94 desired. But advising the aircraft of that was absolutely the right thing to do.

2. Light rain at the field is hardly stupid info. Any change in weather on an aircraft's route of flight is need-to-know information. And, while I obvisouly wasn't there, my assumption as to why the controller was giving all the extra approach information was because this was a foreign carrier declaring an emergency and diverting to an airport that wouldn't have been a normal planned alternate for them. The controller is trying to be helpful by making sure they have all the info they would need to get setup for an unplanned approach. I suppose you could debate whether or not some of the info was too much, but I never interpreted the pilot's words or tone as "getting pissed."

I will say that asking about "putting the gear down to burn off fuel" was something I haven't heard before, but then again, I'm not an approach controller, so what the hell do I know?

A controller's duty in an emergency is to obtain enough information from the aircraft to provide whatever assistance they will need. I'd say this controller did that.

     I think the controller did a good job with both trying to help the aircrew and to prepare for the aircraft to return.  The only exceptions being the whole KG to LBS, the gear question, and trying to squeeze out that last departure so close to an emergency aircraft's landing.  I would hope that any intelligent person working in an industry such as this would know that a KG is a little over 2 pounds so a quick multiplication would've given him a rough estimate of what the plane had on board.  No doubt this info is needs to be given to ARFF so that in a worst case scenario they know how much foam may be required to help extinguish a fuel fire.  As to the gear question, I'm guessing the controller was thinking this would equal more drag and therefore require more thrust which would in turn burn more fuel and lighten the aircraft.  I can only assume that since this was a transatlantic flight they would've been very heavy with fuel and as such would've been making an overweight landing as well.  Again the controller trying to help but it would probably have been better to just let the crew do their jobs. Since they're now in total control more or less, just give them a vector to fly and wait to respond to them and then try to help in whatever way possible/they request.  Asking them to climb repeatedly was probably due to other airspace in the vicinity and would've made it easier for everyone as far as traffic avoidance goes.  
    
     As to the light rain, this could have been necessary for the crews decision process concerning the possible overweight landing which would require a higher approach speed and longer run out as a result.  With rain on the runway braking could be somewhat compromised and as such could have played a vital role in the decisions of the flight crew.

     As far as ARFF not being able to respond to 19C, that one kinda blows my mind.  There are 3, yes 3, seperate fire stations at Dulles.  One at the approach end of 19R, one just east of the cargo terminal area, and one at the approach end of runway 30 which is close to the departure end of 19C.  Now unless they had some other major call going on at the time, it's pretty much inexcusable that one of those with the time they had, couldn't respond to that runway, but could to 19L which is the furthest from all the stations.  I included some pics to show where the stations are on the field.

     If I were the captain of that flight I might have wanted to have a chat with the controllers boss to inquire why a plane was sitting on the runway when we were that close to landing after declaring an emergency.  That was really the only major thing that stuck out to me about the whole incident.  Why take that risk when you already have a higher than normal risk factor situation you're dealing with.  Is it going to be an inconvenience to them?  Sure it is, but I think I would want them to be inconvenienced and/or for them to feel OK about it if I was dealing with that situation as pilot in command.  You can try to make up 10-15 minutes when you get in the air.  You can't pick up thousands of pieces of airplanes and put them back together if something goes wrong.  Not to mention the passengers.  I'm almost surprised the last departure accepted the line up and wait knowing what was going on.

     Concerning the unplanned approach, I don't know if it's Austrian's SOP to have an approach back to the airport they're leaving in the flight plan as a back up for a situation like this or not.  I know whenever I flew, whether it was IFR or VFR I always had a SHTF plan in place.  Even if it was just a flight for touch and goes.  This would usually be something like where are my best off airport landing areas or having an approach back to the airport I was leaving if there was any chance we could get into IMC and even sometimes if there wasn't.  Also a second one within 10-20 miles of our departure airport in case something happened during the initial climb.  In all my flying I only had to put that plan into action once and it was for an alternator failure which occurred at rotation.  We advised the tower of the situation at about 900ft AGL after attempts to cycle it were unsuccessful and told him we intended to return for a full stop and taxi back to maintenance.  We were cleared to land.  As we made the turn back, it occurred to me that the tower hadn't said which runway we were cleared for.  I inquired and he replied with "Any runway sir.  The field is yours.  The winds are calm pick whichever runway you'd like.  I'll send the RJ on final around if I need to."  Not feeling this was necessary we returned back to the runway we took off from and the RJ landed on another which it was set to land on already.  Like my grandfather used to say, "It's almost never the first problem you have that kills you when you're flying.  It's the second one when you haven't corrected the first."  I've yet to read an accident report or talk to another pilot who could say this isn't true.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 09:04:56 AM by semperflyer797 »

Offline oktalist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: Austrian Flight 94 Smoke in the Cabin
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2015, 05:52:08 PM »
19C was being used for departures. What's supposed to happen in case of RTO with engine fire and the ARFF can't get there? Something doesn't add up.