Qantas 767 diversion

[bealiba]

A long time ago, but I'm curious. Hope a Qantas 767 pilot can help!

In early 2005, I caught the "bus" from Sydney to Melbourne as self-loading freight. A little late leaving due to low cloud in ML & SY.

I believe we did the 16 ILS approach (hard to tell at night in cloud sitting behind the wing), when thrust and attitude changed to indicate aborting that approach. In the captain's words, some low passing cloud. I'm guessing they lost visual at the minima.

Now, given that visibility was otherwise OK (as far as I could tell) and it was a passing low cloud, I would have thought we'd go around and land next time after the clouds had passed through. But no, we went to Adelaide. Waited for the fuel truck man to patiently pump enough fuel in and then landed in ML 3 hours later. Why not try ML again if the clouds were only passing - not enough fuel for a second attempt and then diversion?

Why not divert to AV?

Captain was all very professional and helpful - let us use mobiles to tell those waiting for us in ML that we were in AD. Another 76 did the same.

Given the weather was known to be marginal, it would seem a weird policy not to carry enough fuel for a go-around. Or was it something else? :confused:

[DutchRoll]

Couple of things bealiba: I don't know the specific occasion because that sort of thing (diversion due weather etc) does happen from time to time no matter who you fly with but,

1) the company does not like their aircraft conducting multiple go-rounds trying to get in during marginal weather regardless of how much fuel they have, as the punters down the back have been shown to get quite panicky when this happens. They would rather you divert, get on the ground, refuel & get the passengers there later.

2) the vis you saw out of the side window doesn't tell you what he was seeing out the front. Low clouds consistently rolling through? Fog forming over the airfield? You can't really tell. In any case he assessed that there was no guarantee he'd get in off the next one either, and obviously elected to divert before he started burning into his diversion fuel. You don't normally carry enough fuel for multiple approaches and a diversion too. This is a waste of money & time.

Avalon may have had similar weather probs (its not that far away from Mel after all), not enough fuel/ground handling services, no ATC available, etc, etc. A perfectly sensible and normal decision.

[Ronnie Honker]

1) the company does not like their aircraft conducting multiple go-rounds trying to get in during marginal weather regardless of how much fuel they have, as the punters down the back have been shown to get quite panicky when this happens. They would rather you divert, get on the ground, refuel & get the passengers there later.What a load of kafuddle that statement is Dutchie.
If that were the "company thinking" (fuel policy), QF aircraft would be flying around on absolute min. fuel every flight.

And this little gem - "the punters down the back have been shown to get quite panicky when this happens.", and this one, "They would rather you divert, get on the ground, refuel & get the passengers there later". The cost of a diversion and landing away, far exceeds that of carrying out (a) missed approach(es), followed by an eventual successful landing at planned destination.

[TAC On]

Ronnie

Historically, hanging around making "multiple" approaches in marginal conditions, has on occassions lead to tears. Ergo a policy in many airlines, not to make more than a couple.

If that were the "company thinking" (fuel policy), QF aircraft would be flying around on absolute min. fuel every flight.

If some posters on earlier threads are to be believed, that is exactly the case. (refer to QANTAS Jet Lands In Fog, thread from a couple of months ago.)

Tac On

[OverheadPanel]

Ronnie it is the case, and it is QFs policy.

Additionally the policy has been influenced by scared punters (including retarded politicians) running to the media after go-arounds.

As for minimum fuel and QFs policy....well ultimately the Capt decides what fuel goes on. Most follow the policy and then add some. Obviously there are a fair few flights where payload doesnt allow extra, QFs fuel policy is designed to be fairly grey to allow for these situations and therefore can be a little bit flexible based on interpretation. Luckily there are only a few twits who go min op by choice.

I am sure others have a different interpretation, and I certainly dont regard my opinion on this matter as the definitive answer.

[DutchRoll]

You yankin' my chain Ronnie? It's working!

So, Ronnie, how many missed approaches does the FAM say is the normal maximum? What's the company fuel policy? What does the standard flight plan fuel order equate to? Have you ever gotten feedback from 250 passengers after a go-round? Care to enlighten me?

Seems like only one person talking kafuddle 'round here, & it ain't this little black duck!

[Keg]

Two. Flight fuel, 10% of that up to a figure dependant on aircraft type, fixed, approach and landing. holding (weather, traffic, special) as well as the usual bits about DPA, DPD, DPE, DP1, etc. Don't get the next one.....it'll equate to whatever the biggest answer to all of the above. No but the people in the company who are paid big money to deal with passenger complaints reckon they go up exponentially on the second go-around.

We don't make the rules Dutch, we just play inside them.

TAC, good to see you haven't let go of that QF fuel policy yet! :rolleyes: For the record (again), I've NEVER landed on 'min fuel'. It's unusual that I ever get within a half hour of it!

[rescue 1]

I think that the multiple go-around policy is a very sound one.

How many aircraft have crashed on approach because they ran out of fuel? And yes, it could happen to anyone.

[DutchRoll]

Yes I agree Keg. Just pointing out that Ronnie doesn't seem to know the answers to these questions or appreciate the rules we operate within.:ok: He seems to be kafuddling his own kafuddle.;)

[Ronnie Honker]

You'll need a few more years in the Company, Dutchie, flying with older and wiser heads (than your's), after which you will learn to not only read the OM but to also INTERPRET it, and hopefully save not only "250 passengers" from your present inexperience, but also yourself. :p

[regitaekilthgiwt]

bealiba, the wouldn't have gone to AV as it is not an 'approved' alternate for the 767 where as AD is.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

AVV is not an approved ALTERNATE airport only because, apparently, Lindsay Fox wanted a king's ransom in exchange for necessary things (eg, on-call ATC), which make up the Alternate airport criteria. And QF told him where to go. But at the end of the day it's a bloody decent piece of concrete with an ILS. Of all the "Emergency" airports that QF driver's consider, it's probably the most well known to them and will definitely be in play should the need arise.... And using MBZ procs if necessary, Mr Fox!

[king oath]

Gidday Keg,

Those rules are probably made up by QF's lawyers who feel that after multiple approaches the odds, they reckon, might suggest the pressure of getting in might over rule airmanship. Something really nasty could then happen.

So its cheaper to have an occasional divert than the possibility of something really nasty that creates headlines.

But lawyers aren't pilots. In fact they make sh*thouse pilots.

[pakeha-boy]

Sounds like a bunch of monday morning halfbacks here...I would be the first to admit that as the Capt,on occassion have made decisions that could have been better.I dont believe any have been of a safety nature,but in the quiet moments with time to reflect,I could have made a better decision.

This hard and fast policy of complying with company policy/procedures/SOP,unless specifically PROHIBTED and even then,Capts authority takes precedence,is for guidance only.

I cannot believe how the Capts abilty to make decisions/calls has been over the years eroded to the point that we have now become "rote" orientated,what crock of sh@t!!!!.

I totally understand that there are parameters that exist and that we must stay in,I have no problems with that.When I go fly,I fly safe,professionally,and in compliance with all the rules,not everthing is in a "box"

Once again I say:
A superior pilot is one who stays out of trouble,by using his superior judgement to avoid situations which might require the use of his superior skills

For those of you who are worried about ending up in the Chief Pilots office,having to explain your decision making process......get another job(not flying)
We are paid and required to be thinkers and decision makers

waitakataka!!!

[DutchRoll]

Yaaawn.

Ronnie, re-read my original post, but carefully this time. I merely pointed out that the skipper *probably* made a sensible decision under the circumstances and speculated a couple of factors to do with fuel policy and multiple approaches which *may* have caused him to give it away and divert after one missed approach. Small and simple minds like mine can only struggle to comprehend what point you're trying to make in relation to the original topic.:rolleyes:

Yaaawn. Again. Starting to sound like a broken record. Sorry guys. Thought this would be on the bottom of the thread page by now. And yes Ronnie, you may have the last word!

[pakeha-boy]

Dutchroll....sort of have to agree with you mate.....I dont suck the companys [email protected] go along with the game when I have too,but this whole thread of trying to second guess what the skipper and f/o were thinking/doing is anybodys guess.

The bottom line here is,if you have a 'Command" position,do the bloody job and "Command",this boils down to CRM,and I,m sure if you could ever get a hold of the blokes who were flying this# this issue would have a meaningful end.

by the way,the pissup is at my house this weekend,Illl supply the piss/shelias/and snarlers....bring your own condoms.....wahine :E