曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

fuel consumption en route was higher than calculated in the Operational Flight Plan of the flight.
All the contingency fuel of 1300 kg and extra fuel of 200 kg was used before the top of descent.
There were low visibility procedures (LVP) in force in Arlanda when SK946 entered the Stockholm
terminal control area (TMA). The commander requested a category II (CAT II) approach.
The air traffic control cleared SK946 to holding, but the commander of SK946 reported that they
do not have time for holding due to the fuel situation and requested a radar vectoring for approach.
SK946 managed to change the approach sequence with an other aircraft of the same
airline. The pilots expected a short vectoring, but the capacity of the Arlanda airport was reduced
due to the LVP. SK946 flew during approach in TMA 20 minutes and about 65 track miles instead
of 12 minutes and about 40 NM which the pilots had expected. The pilots noticed during approach
that they would not, in case of a missed approach, have enough fuel to fly to the planned
alternate airport Gothenburg. They decided to take Helsinki-Vantaa, Finland, as a new alternate
because of 400 kg less fuel consumption. The runway visual range varied in Arlanda between
400 and 450 m during the CAT II approach, which was stable, but the pilots did not obtain visual
contact to the approach or runway lights at the decision height. The commander initiated a
missed approach procedure and the first officer requested a route clearance to Helsinki-Vantaa.
SK946 contacted the Tampere area control centre on cruising flight level 270 and reported that
the flight would have less fuel than required upon landing in Helsinki-Vantaa. The ATC issued a
direct routing and an approach clearance without restrictions to runway 15. The rescue services
was alarmed by the Helsinki ATC. SK946 landed uneventfully in Helsinki-Vantaa at 05.56 o’clock
with the fuel of 1800 kg when the required minimum fuel was 2300 kg.
SK946 used on the flight from Arlanda to the alternate airport Helsinki-Vantaa, fuel 600 kg more
than calculated in the OFP. The pilots did not pay in flight planning attention to a possible traffic
delay in the destination airport Arlanda. The commander did not take enough fuel for a long approach
caused by the low visibility procedures which involved reduced capacity of the airport. The
fuel consumption during cruise was higher than calculated and all of the contingency and extra
fuel was used en route.
The investigation commission made three safety recommendations to Scandinavian Airlines. The
commission recommended the airline to check the alternate fuel calculation basis used in the
operational flight plans of the airline. The airline was recommended to draw the attention of their
flight crews to the approach fuel calculated by the RODOS Planning system. The commanders
should be recommended to take extra fuel for possible approach delay caused by the weather
conditions and/or intense traffic. The airline recommended to order the flight crews to make the
fuel checks also on the last part of the flights, enter the checks in the OFPs and check and mark
the remaining block fuel or the total consumed fuel of every flight appropriately.

C 9/2003 L
Airliner landing with low fuel at Helsinki-Vantaa airport on 3.10.2003
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................... 3
ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................ 7
SYNOPSIS....................................................................................................................................... 9
1 FACTUAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 11
1.1 History of the flight ............................................................................................................ 11
1.1.1. Flight planning.......................................................................................................... 11
1.1.2 Flight from Chicago to Stockholm............................................................................ 12
1.1.3 Category II approach in Arlanda .............................................................................. 15
1.1.4 Diversion to Helsinki-Vantaa.................................................................................... 15
1.2 Injuries to persons............................................................................................................. 16
1.3 Damage to aircraft ............................................................................................................ 16
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料38(71)