 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
An LJ55 crew flight anticipated VFR arrival weather but actually encountered IMC and flew an ADF approach. After missing the approach; a low fuel state indicated in immediately divert to a nearby airport where they landed with 800 pounds.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1301079 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201510 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Learjet 55 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Climb |
| Route In Use | Direct Vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Fuel System |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 75 Flight Crew Total 3900 Flight Crew Type 650 |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying Captain |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Flight Engineer Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 100 Flight Crew Total 25100 Flight Crew Type 5000 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence |
Narrative:
We had planned an IFR flight. Planning showed that we had enough fuel to complete the trip and that weather would be at least basic VFR for our ETA. Given the weather forecast we anticipated that we would do the visual approach. On arrival the ATIS advertised 900 feet broken and 6 miles visibility. This was lower than forecast. The only option for an IFR approach was the NDB since we are not authorized as per our operation specs to do RNAV approaches. We went missed from the NDB because we never broke out from minimums. We began the approach with about 1;000 pounds of fuel. During the missed our low fuel light illuminated and we became concerned that there was less fuel than indicated. At this point we declared 'minimum fuel'. After that we asked for vectors to a nearby airport. We asked for vectors to ILS 31L since it was the shortest possible option.lessons to be learned:1) a fuel stop should have been made on the way.2) once the lower than anticipated weather was received on ATIS as well as realizing the limited IFR approach options then we should have diverted to a nearby large airport rather than attempting an approach at our destination.3) the other airport would have been a more suitable option to have selected initially.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: An LJ55 crew flight anticipated VFR arrival weather but actually encountered IMC and flew an ADF approach. After missing the approach; a low fuel state indicated in immediately divert to a nearby airport where they landed with 800 pounds.
Narrative: We had planned an IFR flight. Planning showed that we had enough fuel to complete the trip and that weather would be at least basic VFR for our ETA. Given the weather forecast we anticipated that we would do the visual approach. On arrival the ATIS advertised 900 feet broken and 6 miles visibility. This was lower than forecast. The only option for an IFR approach was the NDB since we are not authorized as per our operation specs to do RNAV approaches. We went missed from the NDB because we never broke out from minimums. We began the approach with about 1;000 LBS of fuel. During the missed our low fuel light illuminated and we became concerned that there was less fuel than indicated. At this point we declared 'minimum fuel'. After that we asked for vectors to a nearby airport. We asked for vectors to ILS 31L since it was the shortest possible option.Lessons to be learned:1) A fuel stop should have been made on the way.2) Once the lower than anticipated weather was received on ATIS as well as realizing the limited IFR approach options then we should have diverted to a nearby large airport rather than attempting an approach at our destination.3) The other airport would have been a more suitable option to have selected initially.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.