Originally Posted by
*Lancer*
No one wants to take on my question?
Destination requires TEMPO or Alternate. At what point - specifically - are you not required to have this fuel? When can you commit?
(Note: If you've been holding at any point prior to 1500' overhead, you will not have the fuel at the destination)
That because there isn't a hard answer Lancer.
Don't be suckered into thinking it's an exact science, and there is a prescribed rule for every contingency. There isn't.
My take on it, for what it's worth, is that holding is holding. Doesn't matter if it's above the field or some nebulous point in space used as a sequencing point on the way to the field. If you require a tempo, and you're required to hold at, by way of an example, BEVLY, on the way to Perth then that's when the clock starts. You're not then required to hold a further 60 minutes of fuel just because you've had en route holding. That what the original 60 minutes is for. I've never seen an aircraft actually hold over the airfield as the holding points are usually out at 20NM or so at most major airports. If you've planned for 60 minutes of holding and you actually need more then that's were you declare min fuel and land regardless. If you have experienced yet another display of incompetent forecasting by BoM and the field is below minima for longer than 60 minutes then, with nowhere else to go, you're committed to land regardless of the minima.
That said, expect the Monday morning quarterbacks (ATSB) to pillory whatever decision you make based upon airmanship and the best information you have available at the time. Especially if doing otherwise might actually find the route cause of the issue and that route cause may lay the blame squarely at the feet of Airservices Australia or BoM or some other government organisation that might be an embarrassment to some politician somewhere. How long has it taken for this report to come out, three years? How long did the pilots on these aircraft have to make their decisions? 15 mins? Maybe less.
The discussions here so far have missed the main point of this incident. I find a lot of similarities with the ATSBs handling of the disgraced Norfolk Is investigation and report on this incident. In both cases the ATSB has deliberately attempted to deflect any blame from BoM, CASA, Airsevices or any other government agency and has tried, and failed, to blame the crew.
It wasn't so long ago that the ATSB was formed. It was perceived, at the time, that CASA had a conflict of interest when it came to investigating accidents and incidents as it may seek to hide any blame possibly attributable to its own failings. Fair enough that an independent organisation should be tasked with that responsibility. This incident, and the Norfolk Is debacle, have demonstrated that the ATSB has a way too cosy relationship with other government entitities and will seek to deflect blame from them at all costs. Including destroying the reputations and careers of the crews involved.
Time for the ATSB to go.