Jersdawg

Yeah because they had to go around due to a decreasing performance windshear event at their alternate. Your destination + furthest alternate + 45 minutes are out the window if something "holy **** we need to get the **** out of here" happens. I don't think you're quite following the sequence of events here.

N19906

I agree completely.

RyanP

Fellow Pilots,

On Sunday, June 12, Envoy flight 3263 made an emergency/unscheduled landing at an airport not on Envoy’s list of approved airports that features a runway not designed for normal commercial airline operations. Sometimes when the chips are down the Pilot in Command is forced to make a split-second decision to ensure the safest possible outcome, and this was one such instance.

The flight was originally dispatched with legal fuel, subsequently diverted away from its destination due to weather, and when attempting to land at the alternate airport, encountered decreasing performance and windshear. With minimal fuel, the crew had no choice but to find the nearest suitable airport to safely land the aircraft. Windshear events are stressful enough and this particular crew handled it expertly; but they then quickly had to refocus on their fuel situation after being unable to land at the planned alternate airport.

Federal regulations require both the Captain and the licensed Dispatcher to agree on the fuel plan for every flight, but for economic reasons, all airlines give guidance to dispatch flights with the minimum fuel required by regulations. As rare as yesterday’s event is, it should still serve as a vivid reminder of the value that experienced Captains and Dispatchers bring when analyzing the conditions affecting a flight. Allowing the Pilot in Command and Dispatcher leeway to fuel each flight in the manner they deem safest is only prudent.

In aviation things often don’t go as planned, and it is up to experienced pilots to ensure that even the most unexpected events end favorably. Sunday’s event did end favorably, with the aircraft safely on the ground and the passengers continuing on their way by charter bus.

However, the constant mandates by the industry to always operate with minimum fuel could lead to a less desirable outcome. As professional and experienced pilots, we must always remain vigilant and never compromise on what we believe to be the safest course of action.
-----

One more very important note about this event:

The weather forecast on the dispatch release for this flight did not require an alternate. The Captain saw a forecast for VCSH during the period of arrival and requested an alternate. Dispatch was hesitant to give the Captain an alternate because of the extra fuel (and weight) it would require because the flight was a downgrade.

However, the Captain insisted on having a planned alternate. Sometimes Captains have to be Captains.

This crew did a fantastic job.

They had two alternates added, SGF and FSM. FSM was added enroute.

Celeste

Seems to me that I had been hearing recently that AA us trying to squeeze us on how much extra fuel our dispatchers and captains are putting on planes. Thankfully we aren't flying for them in podunk texas. They don't want alternate fuel for alternates that aren't needed, and/or few hundred pounds of holding fuel... All that fuel is apparently costing papa AAG too much $$$.

I wonder how that's working out for them now??

As for me, I have developed weather prediction models that are better than what the national weather service has. If I predict a storm cell within 100 miles, I carry an extra 2 hours of fuel. This could NEVER happen to anyone as awesome as I am!

JamesNoBrakes

At what level the breakdown occurred is the issue, not whether the flight crew did the right thing by exercising emergency authority. I find it really difficult to believe that weather occurred that was not forecast/predicted. While it may be left out of a specific TAF, it's probably in a convective outlook, prog chart, or area forecast. If you are gambling that T-storms are relatively small and your forecast/outlook area is rather large, you'll eventually lose that gamble. Looking back retroactively in most weather events there are usually pretty solid indicators that ice was to be expected, t-storms were to be expected, etc. Tunnel vision and complacency on the part of either the dispatcher or crew is usually to blame. Of course it's a lot easier to look back retroactively, but when you rush the process and only look at the TAF, it's a gamble you will eventually lose.

Dhood84

Thanks, I'm aware of the regs, I don't need a lesson on that as well. If it's an emergency and all your options are squashed, I'm gonna deviate from any of the FAR's to preserve life and property. I'll fill out the paperwork and answer questions later. I'm perplexed to think that some of you spouting off this rhetoric are captains. I hope that one day I'm not sitting in a flight deck with you as you're thumbing through the GOM / OPSPECS while we are falling out of the sky wondering where to put the airplane down.

DH

qazWSX

Any body know what airport they finally landed at ?

PittsDriver

They landed at Poteau, OK

CBreezy

No alternate was required yet they got one. The TAF and current conditions weren't that bad. So even if there was a Convective Outlook or a prob30, or a TEMPO bumping up against your ETA with TSRA, and there wasn't anything in the area before you leave on your hour flight, what do you do? Tell dispatch you aren't going because the weather guessers say it's going to maybe get bad? No, you add fuel and an alternate, which they did. Then enroute, weather starts popping up between you and your planned alternate, do you just turn around? No. You add a different alternate, which they did. So, where did they go wrong? At what point did the crew do something you wouldn't have done and what would you have done? People keep saying they did the wrong thing by landing with less than 45 minutes of fuel at a GA airport but that isn't the root cause. That's the result of dozens of decisions.

tom11011

What was their landing fuel?