Diversions to Brisbane

[Don Esson]

One can only wonder what CASA think of the safety implications of punters on aeroplane for prolonged period without a crew also on board as inferred by this story from today"s Sydney Morning Herald. Would the token ground staff left to tend the SLF have been able to handle an evacuation in the event of an emergency? Would they have been trained for such?

Fog wreaks airline havoc

Scott Rochfort
May 15, 2007
Other related coverage

* Transport turmoil as fog engulfs Sydney

PASSENGERS on a United Airlines Boeing 747 endured a horrendous 27-hour journey from San Francisco to Sydney yesterday, when their flight was left stranded on the tarmac at Brisbane Airport - without a crew.

Fog in Sydney forced the diversion of two United flights to Brisbane early yesterday. But passengers on both aircraft were left to fend for themselves when their United crews clocked off, having exceeded their legal flying hours.

Nor were the passengers allowed to leave the aircraft, because customs at Brisbane was unable to clear them. "Due to [Department of Transport] regulations, passengers were kept on board for safety and security reasons," an airline spokeswoman said in an email to the Herald.

A relief United crew was flown on a domestic flight from Sydney to Brisbane to fly the first flight down to Sydney.

The first United flight, UA839 from Los Angeles, which was supposed to arrive at 6.10am, finally landed in Sydney at 1.05pm, after an epic 22-hour flight.

But passengers on the second flight, UA863, originally due to arrive in Sydney at 6.25am, had to sweat it out seven more hours.

They had to wait for the same crew that took flight UA839 to Sydney to fly back to Brisbane on a domestic flight to pick them up.

"Passengers were provided with water and juice at approximately 0945 to supplement provisions already on board the aircraft," the airline said. "United Airlines apologises for any inconvenience caused to passengers."

The fog in Sydney forced three Qantas flights from the US to divert to Brisbane and another from Tokyo to divert to Melbourne. They landed in Sydney three to four hours late.

The fog also delayed ferries and motorists throughout the morning rush. Ferry passengers were stranded after services were cancelled at 6am and slowly resumed from 8.30am. The fog lifted over most of Sydney by 10.15am.

The Bureau of Meteorology said fog was expected again today but may not be as widespread.

[speedbirdhouse]

Quote-

"Would the token ground staff left to tend the SLF have been able to handle an evacuation in the event of an emergency? Would they have been trained for such?"

---------

Maybe.

No.

[BuzzBox]

The crew might have reached their FDP limit, so they couldn't continue on and fly the aircraft to SYD. I'd be extremely surprised if they actually 'clocked-off' and left the aircraft, as suggested by this article. Just some idiot journo trying to beat things up as usual.

[Capt Claret]

My first thought was that a professional crew wouldn't deplane leaving pax on board, then I remembered seeing both the tech crew get off their shiny jet with navbags in hand, during refuelling, with the pax still deplaning behind them! :eek: :eek:

[capt.cynical]

The Pilots may well have clocked off,however I doubt the Cabin Crew would have, whilst pax were still onboard.This would be a serious breach of CASA Regs.
Any know the truth ?? := :suspect:

[Going Boeing]

If the Journo's story is reasonably accurate it indicates that the UAL pilots stood on their digs and refused to extend whereas the QF pilots extended and flew the aircraft to SYD when the fog lifted. The QF pilot greed for overtime pay is what management rely on when there are weather diversions. It would be better in times like these, when Dixon has mounted a full scale war on mainline pilots that pilots ignore the overtime carrot and take a long term look at the industrial landscape. Dixon won't change his ways unless he is forced to do so. :ugh:

[Sue Ridgepipe]

Interesting conversation I heard taking place on Brissy ground frequency yesterday morning about 1015:

(not word for word but along these lines...)

United xxx: Ahh Brisbane ground, United xxx we need some help here, we've been left at the gate now for about 2 hours with pax on board, and if we don't get them off soon we're gonna have a mutiny on our hands. Can you get someone to help us please?

Ground Controller: Okay, we'll see if we can make some calls for you and find some help. Who does your ground handling here?

United: We are handled by QF. We need to maybe get some busses out here to get the pax off.

GC: Okay well we're not a bus company up here you know, have you tried calling QF for assistance?

United: Yes we have but they don't have any spare staff left to help us. Please can you do something, the pax are angry and we really need to get them off.

GC: Sorry mate, not much I can do. I suggest you give QF another call.


Obviously with 2 United 747s and probably a couple of QF 747s turning up unscheduled, resources were stretched to the limit. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be a crew member (or a pax for that matter) on any of these flights.

[esreverlluf]

. . . and a little later on QF Bris frequency;
"United XXX,QF Bris, we are no longer your handling agent in Brisbane, that contract was terminated some time ago!"
Obviously something was sorted out eventually.
I saw one of the United tech crews paxing down to Sydney today, and their take on the matter was along the lines of
"It was kinda tough to walk off the airplane when we could have extended, but our union is pretty pissed with the company bosses awarding themselves big bonuses while they screw us"
Geoffrey, Margaret - can you see any parallels there? Does this sound familiar to anyone out there??????:ugh:

[capt.cynical]

I am still waiting for my question to be answered.:\
Or are you guys only concerned about pilot conditions and bugger the pax and Cabin Crew.:{

[esreverlluf]

This is after all the "Pilot's Rumour Network", so forgive us for being preoccupied with our own issues, however, I can't imagine the pax would have been left unattended.

In fact with a diversion such as this, the tech crew would probably have got themselves to a hotel more quickly had they extended and flown on to Sydney. It would appear that the decision to get off in Brisbane was primarily industrial.

There is certainly a sense of obligation to one's passengers to get them to their destination - however regulations, fatigue or in this case industrial issues can get in the way of that. Well done to the crew for taking a difficult decision.

Sometimes you can't win - greedy for extending or uncaring for not.

[speedbirdhouse]

capt.cynical,

yes it would have been a serious breach.

Qf management organised a "tour" for staff and others of the A330 at the domestic terminal when it was newly introduced.

The question was asked of management during the tour ,"where are the cabin crew". Puzzled looks and blank stares were the replies.

Evidently CASA were not amused when informed that this was occurring without having personel onboard suitably trained and certified in evac proceedures.

[chimbu warrior]

Going Boeing.........your assumption that the QF pilots extended their tour of duty may be a little hasty. Remember that QF could easily have positioned a fresh crew from SYD on a domestic service, or even called up some of the crew who reside in or near BNE. Things are not always what they seem.

Obviously these options are not available to UAL.

[Jet_A_Knight]

PAF it's a pretty big jump from the deck of a 747:{

[Capt Fathom]

So what would happen if (as a passenger) you said. "Let me off or I'll call the police and ask that you are arrested for deprivation of liberty".

Without steps, it's a long way to the ground. If you survive that, where are you going to go?

Not the easiest of tasks trying to access a terminal from the tarmac these days! You could walk onto the runway and draw attention to yourself!

[ratpoison]

From the horses mouth, 1 F/O stayed on the flight deck, Capt and other dickey in bunks until relief crew arrived from Syd. No, they did not walk off aircraft leaving Pax onboard.

[capt.cynical]

:uhoh:
Thanks all, but still waiting for the truth of this incidence.
Did the pilots get off and leave the Cabin Crew to maintain A/C secruity or did the C/C get off with the Pilots.
:ugh: :ugh: leaving the a/c under the control of a few (untrained) ground staff from QF or whoether to look after the pax.
I am not Pilot bashing just asking for opions or answers.
]:ugh: :hmm:

[capt.cynical]

Thanks Ratpoison,

We are getting closer to the (TRUTH) but I think thier is alot more to this than any Reguaulity Authouthty would like. :mad: :ugh:

[Don Esson]

From the horses mouth, 1 F/O stayed on the flight deck, Capt and other dickey in bunks until relief crew arrived from Syd. No, they did not walk off aircraft leaving Pax onboard

Well, the horse has partially told the story. What happened to the Cabin Crew? If they departed the scene, would the three or four pilots have been able to oversee any emergency evacuation? Even that would have been beyond their ability.

If the Cabin Crew DID abandon the ship and the SLF, then the regulatory authorities must conduct an enquiry to get to the bottom of this with a view to ensuring that the safety and well being of the SLF is never again prejudiced by UAL or any other carrier.

[sinala1]

QF did not do the handling of these diversions, they were done by Menzies in conjunction with 2 UA reps who were flown up from SYD. QF have apparently only recently lost the UA diversion contract to Menzies.

A lot of the screwing around that did occur to the pax who originated on the SFO flight was apparently because the 2 UA reps kept changing their instructions to Menzies, who merely provided the manpower.

[Animalclub]

PAF
So what would happen if (as a passenger) you said. "Let me off or I'll call the police and ask that you are arrested for deprivation of liberty".
Customs and Quarantine (AQIS?) are pretty powerful organizations and can instruct airlines to keep pax on board until they can handle them... I'm not saying that that happened here... thus the passenger may have had to sue the Government for keeping them on board. Just think what refugees could do!!!

[Whiskery]

For a country that relies on tourism as it's second biggest money spinner, I am surprised none of it's major airports have CAT III B provision.

Sad to see nothing has changed since I left 16 years ago.:rolleyes:

[blueloo]

What do you expect when you sell the airports off ?

[capt.cynical]

None of you "Safety Proffesionals" have answered my simple question.
Did UAL Cabin Crew disembark the A/C with SLF onbourd ??
Someone must know!!
:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :{

[bushy]

New Zealand can handle diversions caused by fog. Maybe we should ask them how to do it.

[Buster Hyman]

Just watched the Virgin A346 fly into Tulla this morning...geez they're bluddy long aren't they? Pretty sure the crew were still onboard as it passed overhead...but don't quote me.

SYD WX...honestly, who'd want to live there?:}:ouch::suspect:

[Capt Claret]

capt.cynical

Perhaps no one's answered because no one knows, because no one was there to see. Fancy getting stroppy because someone can't answer a question that you can't answer yourself.

[esreverlluf]

Capt Cynical - if you seriously believe that UAL may have left a jumbo full of passengers completely unattended, then you have absolutely no idea, and I would politely suggest, no place in this forum.

Why don't you call UAL [(02) 9007 9894] if you are so effing interested.

[BuzzBox]

Well said that man...:D :D :D

[C441]

Speaking to a Brisbane Airport employee yesterday, there were a couple of problems disembarking the pax. One was terminal capacity. However another, unusually, was that pax didn't want to leave their Duty-free grog, perfume, face cream or other expensive liquid or gel onboard but if they took it into the terminal it would be confiscated at security!
After sometime a clever little F/A suggested they all label their stuff, leave it onboard and de-plane when allowed. (The Cabin crew were apparently still onboard then).

I paxed up from Sydney on the same flight as the UA Tech-crew (and 2 Ops people to manage the show) that flew the first aircraft down to Sydney. I believe they then paxed back to Brissy and flew the other jet down to Sydney later in the day.

It was confirmed that the crew that operated into Brissy from the States were not prepared to continue on to Sydney as a mark of appropriate respect for their management! :*

[sinala1]

From the information I have been given, the pax from the SFO flight were put onto QF domestic services to get to SYD - the B744 was subsequently ferried to SYD later that day.

[superG3]

This seems to happen all to regually. When is AirServices going to catch up with the rest of the planet and install CAT3 ILS, problem solved I would have thought?

[maralinga]

I'm with Whiskery, once again this highlights the lack of government policy (by both sides) with respect to the contribution of aviation to Australia. With $22.3 billion allocated under the 2007-8 budget for land transport upgrades, they have spoken volumes.

"But the airports are privatised, I hear, and they are reponsible for meeting the requirements of the aviation commmunity". Yes, but trucks can use public roads, whereas aircraft are compelled to use privately owned facilities. Apples and Oranges.

"Other modes of transport are more reliable, particularly to regional areas" If adequate infrastructure was in place (navaids for lower mins, etc), then not only would aviation be more reliable, but wait, it would also be more economical and therefore competitive.

The government is responsible for ensuring that the national infrastructure is so developed to support all members of the transport community, not just those with the greatest Canberra pressure group. Wasn't it the incumbent government whos policy was "Nation Building".

We really seem determined to be a second world country.

[J430]

I see Sydney was fogged out again today.......what happened this time?

Did crews extend?

J:uhoh:

[Mike773]

New Zealand can handle diversions caused by fog. Maybe we should ask them how to do it.

By having comparitively stuff all traffic to handle! :}

But for the heavies, if AKL is closed, you go to CHC and v.v.. Ohakea is not an option for anyone except NZ or a genuine emergency. NZCAA got everyone to update their AOC expositions last year to state that we won't use OHA. This stemmed from an incident last year where several airlines that route over Australia failed to stop enroute when they knew CHC and AKL were closed and carried on anyway.

CAT-III is being introduced at NZAA 23L and should be fully up by May next year, although I noticed RVR being reported when it was foggy the other day. That's new!

AKL's CAT-III is well overdue given the lack of alternates available but I suppose in Australia they think there are plenty of options for a heavy and SYD/BNE/MEL are unlikely to be all fogged in at once. Although it could happen, so I'd definitely support a CAT-III of some description for YSSY 16R. :ok:

[Feather #3]

SG3,

This annual debate has been very well documented over the years each time this happens.

However, note that it's not AsA who are responsible for on airport navaid installation, it's the airport owners. :ugh: Have a chat with them. :rolleyes:

Oh....and Good Luck!!:mad:

G'day ;)

PS a rumour has it that Cat II is being planned for MEL?? :confused:

[apacau]

Actually Feather, I know of several airport owners who are very keen for upgraded Cat II/III systems: esp MEL, SYD and CBR. MEL especially has invested in all the lighting infrastructure needed for Cat II at least (not sure about Cat III)

Look to ASA and CASA for the delays... From what I understand, the latter don't even have full standards written for Cat II/III and are currently urgently looking at getting something done about it!

Also whilst the Flying Ops departments of the major airlines couldn't get it fast enough, try talking to the bean-counter departments of the same airlines. Some have quite categorically stated (in writing) that there is no need for full Cat II/III in Australia (though I believe the view is changing on this!)

[SM4 Pirate]

Won't GBAS/GRAS give better than CAT III approaches when it's fully in? For a sh!t load cheaper than all the gear required for the ILS? i.e. GLS Approaches.

But that's a whole other thread:hmm:

[Worrals in the wilds]

G'day y'all, more of a lurker than poster, but just to clarify...

Airservices Australia install and maintain all navaids, ILS and approach lighting. The airport authorities have nothing to do with them, other than (carefully) mowing around their bases.
The airport provides all other airfield lighting, visual approach systems (Papis etc) and wind indicators.

If an ILS cat III is to be obtained (and it would save a lot of chaos come Fog Season), any :ugh:needs to be done to the Airservices wall, rather than that of the airports'.

Cheers!
Worrals

[galaxy flyer]

Three years ago, my QF flight diverted to Nadi because both destination AKL and CHC were closed due to fog. The crew seemed to indicate that it was that unusual in fog season. But, outside of SCL and EZE, there are almost NO Cat II and Cat III approaches in Southern Hemisphere.

GF

[Rongotai]

"Three years ago, my QF flight diverted to Nadi because both destination AKL and CHC were closed due to fog. The crew seemed to indicate that it was that unusual in fog season. But, outside of SCL and EZE, there are almost NO Cat II and Cat III approaches in Southern Hemisphere".
It isn't all that unusual to end up at Nadi when en route US-NZ. Over the years this has happened to me 5 times. Usually it isn't because AKL and CHC both have fog - it is because AKL does and CHC Wx indicates that there might be in 5 hours time. When it happens they get you off the plane reasonably fast, but then you have to wait for a new crew to arrive from somewhere. Compared with the BNE experience though, they don't do a bad job of moving people into hotels.
Ohakea is not limited to NZ, as someone has said in this thread, but when there are a group of diversions there - as happened once last year (7, I think) - the pax are even worse off than those in BNE last week. There is no infrastructural support to get them off the planes at all - and no stocks of food and drink to put aboard.
There have been some close calls over the years. The most famous being the UA flight that landed at WLG when they realised half way to CHC that they didn't have enough fuel for a missed approach at CHC or to get back to anywhere else that could take them.

[Going Boeing]

Rongatai

Ohakea is not approved for QF B744's but is for Air NZ which is why QF aircraft have to divert to Nandi or Noumea if AKL weather is below Alternate Criteria and CHC is not suitable. The Air NZ aircraft have the ability to proceed to AKL and shoot an approach - most times getting in, but on occasions diverting to Ohakea. It gives Air NZ a significant commercial advantage. GB

[Mike773]

Sorry Rongotai, but you're wrong. Re-read what I said in my previous post about Ohakea. All foreign airlines were made to update their expositions with the CAA last year to state that they won't use OHA except in an emergency. It is only available to NZ because they pay the RNZAF for the right to go there as necessary. Any foreign airline that comes to NZ with the intention of going to OHA, or ends up there due to poor fuel/flight planning is likely to face that wrath of the CAA.

[Habster]

Can't wait to see a 380 jam packed with economy passengers sitting idly by

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"There have been some close calls over the years. The most famous being the UA flight that landed at WLG when they realised half way to CHC that they didn't have enough fuel for a missed approach at CHC or to get back to anywhere else that could take them."

This is interesting. A good few years ago I was up in the front office of a Singapore Airlines 747 enroute Singapore to Auckland. As we were taking in the dawn over Sydney, both Auckland and Christchurch were closed due fog but expected to open by the time we got there. My recollection is that we were carrying Sydney as an alternate (but wouldn't bet my left ball on that).

I asked the Captain if we could get into Wellington, which was open. He got out the books and a few minutes later said "We can get into there OK but getting out again won't be fun".

Dr:cool:

[MR MACH]

This was the process to determine if a CAT III installation was justified in Australia. This was a few years ago - I don't think it has changed.
If a CAT III installation was being considered at an airport the Board of Airline Representatives (which usually includes all the airlines operating through it) approaches Airservices with a proposal.
Airservices then determines what the costs are for installation, lighting, flight testing, ongoing maintenance and any other other extras.
Airservices then inform the Board of Airline Representatives what the costs will be over the life cycle of the installation and how much the navaid charges will increase. The Board then refers the matter to the airlines to determine if they still want the installation.
When the Board has received the replies from the airlines it then makes the decision on whether the installation will go ahead and informs then Airservices of the decision.
So the short answer is if the airlines want a navaid they can have it - but at a price. In the end the airline numbercrunchers make the decision on economics.