What happened
On February 23, 2017, a commercial flight operated by Icelandair, involving a Boeing 757-200 (registration TF-FIP), departed Keflavik Airport for Manchester Airport. Although the commander had requested an additional 1,000 kg of fuel due to anticipated high winds, the flight encountered significant weather challenges upon arrival in the UK.
While holding at Manchester Airport, the crew observed other aircraft diverting due to severe wind shear. The crew attempted an approach to runway 23R at Manchester, but severe turbulence at approximately 800 feet necessitated a go-around. The crew then diverted to Liverpool Airport, intending to land there if the Manchester approach failed.
Upon approaching Liverpool, the aircraft encountered further difficulties. During the final approach to runway 27, the aircraft encountered severe turbulence and a wind shear warning at 800 feet, leading to a second go-around. Following this second attempt, the crew realized they were approaching their minimum diversion fuel limits. The crew then requested an alternate airport, eventually selecting Leeds Bradford Airport. However, the crew lacked familiarity with the airport and could not find necessary approach charts in their electronic database. As the aircraft continued to consume fuel while awaiting instructions and frequencies, the crew declared a fuel emergency to ensure a priority landing at Leeds.
The investigation
The RNSA examined the flight planning process, the crew's review of meteorological information, and the airline's fuel management practices. The investigation looked into why the selected alternate airport was susceptible to the same severe weather affecting the primary destination. Additionally, the investigators reviewed the airline's "fuel saving program," which included bonuses for pilots based on parameters such as minimizing extra fuel (XTRAF). While the commander's decision to take extra fuel for this specific flight was not influenced by the bonus, the investigation noted that the airline had not performed a risk assessment regarding the implementation of these fuel-based bonuses.
Findings
- The primary cause of the incident was the inappropriate selection of an alternate airport that did not account for the prevailing meteorological conditions.
- The flight plan failed to sufficiently highlight Significant Meteorological Information (SIGMET) contained within the flight documents.
- The flight crew did not notice the active SIGMETs during their pre-flight review.
- Contributing factors included limited time and facilities for the crew to conduct a thorough briefing prior to departure.