You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Civil Aviation

Eurowings Flew To Closed Airport

All about Airlines and Airliners.
 

Yokes 25 May 20, 14:39Post
Eurowings still seems to have to get used to the corona restrictions. on Saturday last weekend, an Airbus A320 had to fly back to the departure airport in Düsseldorf because Olbia Airport, OLB is closed to international flights until June 24. The Lufthansa subsidiary could have known that, as a spokesman admitted on Monday. The restrictions could be read in the obligatory Notams. There was a "misunderstanding" in advance of the interpretation of the Notams, the spokesman said. The passengers were rebooked. After all, this leads to manageable costs, because according to Eurowings there were only two.

{laugh} {laugh}

Source in German:
https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehme ... FLqnDE-ap1

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 4#248d28d5
airtrainer 25 May 20, 22:40Post
DXing 26 May 20, 14:13Post
I'm really surprised that happened. CFMU (Eurocontrol) is very good at suspending flight plans when something isn't right (restricted airspace, closed airway, etc.). Sounds like Italy opened up the airport and published a notam only to revoke it a few hours later. Long odds but it appears that the crew received and reviewed their paperwork during the "open" window. It's odd that the airline would have even scheduled the flight if the airport was being reported closed less than 12 hours before the flight with no expectation that it was going to open.

Even off the ground it's surprising that the controllers didn't confirm the flights destination when the new notam closing the airport was issued. Getting all the way to destination without anyone bringing up the fact that the airport was now closed with no estimate of reopening is awfully odd. Fortunately, given the nature of flying today with so much uncertainty either the crew or the airline did the right thing in fueling for a round trip. They would have looked even more foolish if they had to declare a fuel emergency to gain landing access.

This brings up a good point between European carriers and those in the States. I am a FAA licensed dispatcher. No flight can depart unless I issue a valid flight release with my name, and the captains name on it. We share joint responsibility for the safe planning and execution of the flight. That means for every flight I dispatch I have to be aware of any notams, weather, mechanical deficiencies, or extraordinary items affecting each flight I release. In Europe, there are some carriers that have a person doing some of the things I do, but I don't believe they are legally responsible in the same way I am.

So while a flight under my operational control is in the planning stage or airborne, if I get a notam stating that the destination airport is closed, it is my responsibility to get the details. Will it still be closed when we are supposed to arrive? If so do I have a legal alternate? If not what makes sense, returning to the departure airport or stopping short somewhere? I then get with the ops manager and explain the situation and get their input. What works best for them? If I can accommodate that then we get with the crew and explain the situation and solution. The captain can say ok, work with ATC to amend his flight plan, or he can say I don't want to go there for a variety of reasons. In the end we find a place that works, I work up a new flight plan from present position, and issue a new release with a change of destination.

In Europe, on the short hauls, it seems like the crew doesn't get this kind of service from anyone in house, so if ATC doesn't give them a heads up, they end up arriving at a closed airport.

In practice, I can dispatch, and the PIC can take off with a closed airport listed as the destination, if we can reasonably expect that the airport will be open when we get there, and we have a solid alternate listed. An example would be EINN has their runway closed from 23z to 05z for runway construction. My ETA is 0615z. I can therefore depart KEWR on time since I can be reasonably assured that the runway will be open for business when I get there.

Let's say it is a short haul flight, KIAH to KAMA. I receive a new notam saying an accident has closed the airport to inbounds. The flight I released is in the boarding process. I need to find out what the estimated time of reopening is at KAMA. If it is after my flights ETA, then I need to call ATC and cancel the flight plan immediately so the flight cannot depart. I then need to send a message to the crew informing them that that KAMA is closed due to an accident, their release is void, their flight plan is cancelled, standby for further info once I talk to the boss. I would call the ATC desk and ask them to get a decent estimate of reopening, and then call the ops manager to let them know what info I do have to get them thinking of alternative plans.

In this case the crew had every reason, based on the notams they reviewed prior to departure, that the airport was open for business. Unfortunately, since the flight was not closely monitored from the ground by an airline representative, no one caught the follow on notam with the new closure.

I'm not saying the U.S. system is better, but I think our pilots appreciate the fact that they know that someone on the ground, who has passed some of the same tests they have, has their back.
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 26 May 20, 21:38Post
Yokes wrote:The passengers were rebooked. After all, this leads to manageable costs, because according to Eurowings there were only two.


Ironically the flight would have been allowed to land had it been a 19 seater or smaller. It would have been cheaper and more successful to charter a private jet to take the two passengers!
A million great ideas...
Braniff747SP 30 May 20, 21:56Post
DXing wrote:I'm not saying the U.S. system is better, but I think our pilots appreciate the fact that they know that someone on the ground, who has passed some of the same tests they have, has their back.


I don't see why we can't say that - no doubt that it's higher cost and more bureaucratic, but certainly seems safer to me.

I know the U.S. is an anomaly in this regard. What I don't know is why: what's the backstory (is there one?) to the set-up we've got here vis a vis what everyone else has?
The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
DXing 31 May 20, 14:37Post
Braniff747SP wrote:I know the U.S. is an anomaly in this regard. What I don't know is why: what's the backstory (is there one?) to the set-up we've got here vis a vis what everyone else has?


There are a number of different versions of how dispatchers came to be. Every one of them has to do with a preventable accident.

One is that the Post Office set up stations along the way of the mail routes to provide stations downline of flight plans, departure, enroute, and estimated arrival times, and to provide local weather updates. To me this has always sounded more like the origin of FSS (flight service stations).

https://www.dispatcher.org/dispatcher/early-dispatch-history

Several others, as well as a pretty good history of the profession are detailed in this series of articles.

https://www.theaviationvault.com/aircraft-dispatchers

Hope that helps answer some of your questions.
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
Braniff747SP 03 Jun 20, 18:33Post
DXing wrote:
Hope that helps answer some of your questions.


Fascinating. Thanks!
The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT