QF 10 27 August 2014
not enough credit for fuel
How bout this for a better reason?
TTF SPECI YMML 271030Z 22005KT 0200 R16/0200N FG 09/09 Q1028
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tonight was the weirdest fog I've seen, even in this ****hole! Watched it roll in pretty quick. Never thought I'd say this about a weather phenomena but...........cool 
Blueskymine,
Of course! But the ability to do a Cat 3B doesn't mean you don't need gas for an alternate. I'm guessing the fog wasn't forecast to roll in quite this early?
Of course! But the ability to do a Cat 3B doesn't mean you don't need gas for an alternate. I'm guessing the fog wasn't forecast to roll in quite this early?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious, no criticism offered, just some points;
Unless QF have downgraded it, the A380 is Cat3b capable, yes?
At a time when fog is prevalent, it would be expeditious of QF to ensure it's crews are Cat2/3 current I would have thought? (The weather in LHR can be crap at any time of the year!)
Is Melbourne Cat 2/3 capable and was it operational?
Unless QF have downgraded it, the A380 is Cat3b capable, yes?
At a time when fog is prevalent, it would be expeditious of QF to ensure it's crews are Cat2/3 current I would have thought? (The weather in LHR can be crap at any time of the year!)
Is Melbourne Cat 2/3 capable and was it operational?
It's got nothing to do as to whether the aircraft or crew are low vis capable (99.9% of the time they are BTW)
It's got everything to do with legally being able to continue past the latest point on your flight plan (we call it DPA) with sufficient fuel to carry Melbourne (above alternate minima)
Everyone knows you can get in on a 0/0 Cat III approach (with no Decision Height seeing nothing at all), but you must be legal fuel wise from DPA to actually go to Melbourne commence the approach. They weren't, they went to Adelaide (gas up, carry an alternate for Melbourne, fly to Melbourne, carry out a low vis approach in Melbourne if still poor weather, land, buy duty free, go to hotel!)
It's got everything to do with legally being able to continue past the latest point on your flight plan (we call it DPA) with sufficient fuel to carry Melbourne (above alternate minima)
Everyone knows you can get in on a 0/0 Cat III approach (with no Decision Height seeing nothing at all), but you must be legal fuel wise from DPA to actually go to Melbourne commence the approach. They weren't, they went to Adelaide (gas up, carry an alternate for Melbourne, fly to Melbourne, carry out a low vis approach in Melbourne if still poor weather, land, buy duty free, go to hotel!)
...which is a function of not wanting to pay circa $10,000 to carry 10 tonnes of fuel for 12 hours absent a forecast or gut feeling to the contrary. Australian regulations are among the few that do not require an alternate, recent near disasters notwithstanding.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversions are normally quite expensive too, considering the burn for the additional take-off and climb, (how much fuel do you think they uplifted in Adelaide?), Landing and handling fees etc. positioning of new crew, bad will from the pax, which will take a big chunk out of the $10,000. so would have thought it prudent to carry the extra, for the sake of maybe only $2-3K, (revenue from one First Class seat), aircraft and pax all in the right place and on time. Never worked for a carrier that, as normal SOP, didn't plan an alternate.
Parabellum, no argument from me. And I overstated the carriage costs. Probably more like $3000 to haul the extra fuel. The diversion would have been much more than that. The overtime alone for the tech crew would have been more than that.
Forecasters everywhere miss the first fogs of autumn and he first storms of spring. And sometimes, like here, late winter weather which can often be one way or the other depending on chaos and just enough moisture.
This risk/cost game that we play weighs the daily costs of alternate fuel against the known occasional diversion. It does not consider the much smaller risk of all the nearby alternates going down too, which results in the odd emergency and very near miss. And the odd accident. But we haven't killed anybody yet, as I recently heard a manager state without apparent irony.
Forecasters everywhere miss the first fogs of autumn and he first storms of spring. And sometimes, like here, late winter weather which can often be one way or the other depending on chaos and just enough moisture.
This risk/cost game that we play weighs the daily costs of alternate fuel against the known occasional diversion. It does not consider the much smaller risk of all the nearby alternates going down too, which results in the odd emergency and very near miss. And the odd accident. But we haven't killed anybody yet, as I recently heard a manager state without apparent irony.
