Blood from a stone = minimal fuel

[five dogs]

Whispers from the Townsville refueller suggest an unplanned diversion saw the jet arrive with min fuel. Lights at the destination, a northern capital city failed and Bloggs was advised to hold but not told why.

After squeezing the stone really hard Bloggs was advised no rwy lites and no idea of how long to rectification.

Shirly Bloggs should of been told straight up why there was a need to hold. Not be put in a position of almost arriving with less than min fuel! :eek:

[Zoomy]

I would agree, however this TL refueller is starting to sound like 'the common man' out of the play 'A man for all seasons.':E

[adsyj]

"and don't call me Shirly"

[3 Holer]

five dogs, what is your (or rather, the Townsville refueller) definition of "min fuel" ?

Are you referring to mandatory reserves being intact as minimum fuel or enough fuel to taxi off the runway as minimum fuel? :confused:

What do you mean when you say ...almost arriving with less than min fuel ?

Are you saying the aircraft almost arrived at the aerodrome or almost had "min fuel" when it arrived ?

[five dogs]

3 Holer, the refuellers cousin tells me that it landed with fixed reserve. the issue is that if'n Bloggs hadn't pushed for the reason for the delay and how long, he'd have held to a point where he landed with less than fr.

The refueller's second cousin tells me that on first being told of the reason for delay, Bloggs was advised that the techs were on the way and portable lites were being set up.

Next advice after holding for an unknown period was that there were no techs and no portable lites. :eek: :eek: :ugh:

[Captain Sand Dune]

I know this is a rumour network, but this sounds like it's stretching the definition a little!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

What was the ETI to possible ALTN I wonder??......:ok:

[Jabawocky]

And why hasn't Capt Bloggs been on here to explain himself???

J:ok:

[jungledriver]

Aircraft a few days later were told to hold due ''airport closure'' at the same northern destination. Disabled aircraft closed the runway and information was not forthcoming!

[Capt Claret]

Too close to the truth, ya reckon Captain Sand Dune.

He's really got his finger on the pulse, the Townsville Refueller has. Wonder if he can advise winning lotto numbers?

[Ejector]

So buddy 5 dogs, Which airport made them hold and have no lights. Fact's only. If you don't reply then you are full of what comes out of the anus of a cow. This is your chance buddy 5 dogs.

[Capn Bloggs]

And why hasn't Capt Bloggs been on here to explain himself???

T'wasn't me, Jaba. My aeroplane has tanks for carrying FUEL, not AIR, and that's what I use them for! :} :ok:

[drop bear ten]

What is the secrecy about?

Facts:

-The runway lights at DARWIN (YPDN) failed in the early evening of Friday
22 May 09.

-The back up power supply did not do it's job

-The failure lasted for over an hour according to a source.

There was no legal requirement to hold an alternate as the weather was fine etc

It is rather concerning that this can occur at an international airport, and one can only hope that a detailed investigation will examine the various aspects of the incident and ensure it won't happen again.

With the RAAF involved I somehow doubt that.

[Dog One]

One would have thought that the fire service could have laid the portable lights onto 11/29 while the tech's were sorting out the missing volts/amps.

[BeerBaron]

There was no legal requirement to hold an alternate as the weather was fine etc

Where? What third world country has no requirement for an alternate? We carry/have two+ of everything in case of failure - engines, electrics, hydraulics, and airports

Oh, yeah, that's right, the only third world country to not carry an alternate is Australia. Silly me. Those crazy guys would rather carry 60 minutes for weather rather than 20-40 minutes for an alternate.

And I remember being told how Australia invented aviation. Those Aussies should get out there and tell all those first world countries with their reliable airport lighting, Cat III approaches and great ATC how they're doing it wrong.

:E

[hotnhigh]

See, there you go again beer baron. Practical in every sense. And as for cat III, why would Australia need that? How many diversions this week for australian carriers? Third world and third rate indeed.

But did Kev's $42Bill package include any money for macquarie, so that they could help improve australian airport efficiencies?

[RENURPP]

One would have thought that the fire service could have laid the portable lights onto 11/29 while the tech's were sorting out the missing volts/amps.

Thats what they told us was happening. 5 mins later they determined they didn't have any.

:rolleyes: :mad: :=:* :mad: :rolleyes:

[snoop doggy dog]

But did Kev's $42Bill package include any money for macquarie, so that they could help improve australian airport efficiencies?

Little Johhy sold everything off, so the "Economy was always great." :ugh: Not sure who for and why should tax payers fund a private institution?

Macquarie has swiped enough money out of everyday people at Sydney Airport. Sydney Airport was one of our Assests sold off by the previous government.

Macquarie can cough up some dough. :ouch: That's right, you can only get profits and not spend one red cent! Stupid me... :ugh: Maybe it's best that the tax payer pays (again) then for previous government F@ck ups :}

I am not sure what the big deal is about arriving with MORE than minimum fuel? Sounds like the crew had their options regards fuel etc and had a handle on an unexpected situation.

The runway lights is another thing. Trying to get milage out of an A/C arrived with MORE than minimum fuel, seems to give everyone the sh!ts..... me included! :=

The TL refueller has always been a good and reliable source of information. He doesn't need to be discredited by others. :mad:

[illusion]

Your rants about Macuarie are nice, but nothing to do with Darwin Airport. Darwin is a joint user (military / civil) owed by the federal government- is it not??

[AQIS Boigu]

Australia is behind every 1st world country in regards to aviation... no alternate required...ridiculous seperation requirements in SYD between heavy and heavy (go LHR...2.5nm can be done safely, take off clearance issued the moment the preceding aircraft is off the ground)...still not even a CAT 2 ILS in SYD or MEL (even the Kiwis "down" the road got CAT3 in AKL)...

[Gundog01]

almost arriving with less than min fuel!


5DOGS, so did they arrive or only almost. Surely if they "almost arrived" this would would be about the crash of said aircraft....

Ahhhh, the joys of goggles....

[Capn Bloggs]

... no alternate required...
Yes. Australia has a really stupid rule where, if the weather is fine and beaut and ground facilities suitable, the pilot in command can use his head about what fuel he carries. No need to spoon feed him as obviously happens elsewhere.

even the Kiwis up the road got CAT3 in AKL...
The last time I looked at Google Earth, Orkland is DOWN there, same level as Hobart with the same pooey weather.

Darwin light failure with no backup? Why am I not surprised?

[AQIS Boigu]

Yes. Australia has a really stupid rule where, if the weather is fine and beaut and ground facilities suitable, the pilot in command can use his head about what fuel he carries. No need to spoon feed him as obviously happens elsewhere.

...well Capn Bloggs...I think common sense and airmanship would dictate that you should always carry fuel for another airfield (maybe except when you got two seperate runways)...that's at least the way I was brought up...no matter when I was flying a C206, Bongo, Dash8 or a widebody...those 200nm to Tindal won't make much of a difference to your fuel calculation...you think it's cool to run around on min fuel but one day it might bite you in the arse...no company will question you on 2-3 tonnes more gas... but the bosses will when you have to land on the Stuart Highway near that locator (can't remember its name) if a 767 for whatever reason can't get off the runway in Darwin...

My 2c worth...

[RENURPP]

no company will question you on 2-3 tonnes more gas...

Maybe no company you have worked for!! :rolleyes:

[ZEEBEE]

Some years ago when the Concorde was still gracing the skies, Collins from Flying Magazine was given the opportunity to do the trip from LHR to JFK (I think) in the jump seat.
Approaching New York, their TOTAL fuel endurance at landing was calculated at six minutes and were cleared straight in from 86 miles out.
Collins jokingly asked what their alternate was, given that they couldn't even have conducted a go around without finding a REALLY good thermal.
The skipper replied, "We are cleared for 23R...our alternate is 23L"

[Tankengine]

A380-800,
What is your CASA approved Altn for Perth?:confused:

Don't forget most carriers O/S use a closer Altn than we are approved for.
[Payar lebur, Shenzen, Haneda etc!]

I personally want either, a funk hole, 2 runways, or a runway twice as long as I need [to land short or over:E]

[Capn Bloggs]

A380-800 Driver,
Bloggs- Just to clarify- Do you think that it is a good idea to have an alternate as mandatory irrespective of weather or not?
No I don't. It should be left up to the PIC to decide.

AQIS,
...well Capn Bloggs...I think common sense and airmanship would dictate that you should always carry fuel for another airfield (maybe except when you got two seperate runways)...that's at least the way I was brought up...no matter when I was flying a C206, Bongo, Dash8 or a widebody...those 200nm to Tindal won't make much of a difference to your fuel calculation...
The PIC should decide.
you think it's cool to run around on min fuel but one day it might bite you in the arse...no company will question you on 2-3 tonnes more gas... but the bosses will when you have to land on the Stuart Highway near that locator (can't remember its name) if a 767 for whatever reason can't get of the runway in Darwin...
Are telling me or asking me? I do not think it's cool to run around on min fuel bla bla bla. By all means ask for my opinion but don't give me a lecture when you don't even know how I operate. Oh, by the way, you'll be pleased to know that I am waging a war on this very issue in my company.

If a 767 can't get "OF" the runway in DRW I'll either land on the cross-strip or on the remaining bit of 11/29. Pretty simple really. next?

Renurpp,
no company will question you on 2-3 tonnes more gas
Shall I set Capt Eco Warrior onto him or shall you? :E

Zeebee,
I love it! :D

[RENURPP]

Bloggs

Your closer to him/them than I am, :yuk: feel free :D


I don't at all agree with the current fuel ideas within our company. Having said that the best way to show them its wrong is to do exactly what they want and watch it turn to ****e, as it does/has.

Most people ignore policy and the guru's walk around patting them sleves on the back. It is quite strange really.

:rolleyes:

[Capn Bloggs]

A380-800,
Bloggsie- Fair enough, but the PIC decision in this case may be good enough for single engine aircraft with a bang seat, but for commercial operations, where literally everything is backed up for unforeseeable/unlikely events, eg engine failures, weather minima, pilot incapacitation, autopilots, electrical systems etc, it seams odd that we have disparate fuel policices in this day and age. Having fuel to land on a back up bit of turf makes sense to me and I am a fan of the policy.
Understand all that. Arriving at a tin-pot joint like Perth certainly warrants alternate fuel but surely not a major 24/7 international hub like Darwin, run by the Defence Farce of Australia? ;)

Maybe the new head of CASA will put the eco-warriors back in their boxes by mandating at least "technical" alternates (now there's a term that has been in use in Oz for quite a while, by some at least, hey AQIS...) for all high-cap ops.:D

[AQIS Boigu]

RENURPP and Capn Bloggs...who you guys working for???


Are telling me or asking me?

well...I was asking you and voicing my opinion using a potential scenario...

I'll either land on the cross-strip or on the remaining bit of 11/29. Pretty simple really. next?

in a 737/320 maybe....in my previous post I was refering to a widebody...an overrun on 18/36 with its 1500m will make the front page of that NT paper...whilst a normal landing at Tindal won't...(has JQ/VB/QF ever diverted to Tindal at all???)


Fair enough, but the PIC decision in this case may be good enough for single engine aircraft with a bang seat, but for commercial operations, where literally everything is backed up for unforeseeable/unlikely events, eg engine failures, weather minima, pilot incapacitation, autopilots, electrical systems etc, it seams odd that we have disparate fuel policices in this day and age. Having fuel to land on a back up bit of turf makes sense to me and I am a fan of the policy.

Thats the way...it is also policy at my company and not negotiable...and I fully agree with it..."I like..."

...but dont give me a lecture...

dont worry; never intended to do so...I am not going to lecture someone with 1800+ posts...got better things to do...

[Capt Claret]

no company will question you on 2-3 tonnes more gas

Pigs @rse they won't.

[AerocatS2A]

...an overrun on 18/36 with its 1500m will make the front page of that NT paper...whilst a normal landing at Tindal won't...(has JQ/VB/QF ever diverted to Tindal at all???)
A normal landing at Tindal? At night? Hopefully you don't collect a gaggle of roos on the landing roll (and hopefully you can find some stairs to let the passengers out :D).

[rvjk]

Darwin is run by Darwin International Airport.

The RAAF provides ATC.

Responsibility for lighting is a shared cost but managed by the airport operator.

AsA provides RFF and are responsible for emergency throwdown lighting.

I know this thread is about fuel. This is for info only.

[RENURPP]

Who's responsible for knowing what lighting is available?

[AerocatS2A]

Renurpp, the PiC is responsible for knowing what's available, but maybe that wasn't the answer you were going for? The PiC can only know what he's told, so if he's told via the AIP/Jepps that YPDN has electric lighting with standby power then he should reasonably expect that to be the case.

[RENURPP]

AerocatS2A No that wasn't what I was getting at.
ATC advised portable lighting was being deployed, then some minutes later advised, "whoops we don't have any" :eek: In the mean time a drum of two of fuel have dissapeared.

I expect a response something like "thats DIA's responsibility, they told us they had some", which they may have.

Point being I would have thought ATC should be very aware of the facilities available to an aircraft, and I mean before time, not in the heat of the moment.

I think its time for the buck passing to continue :oh:

[maybegunnadoo]

Back in '96 Darwin suffered what the met boys called a 'mini cyclonic event'. The rain and storms were totally unforecast at that intensity and it lasted for a period of 3-4 hrs. I was luckily watching from the ground at this time and the vis in the rain was lucky to be 10ft. From memory we recieved 200+ mm in this period. The tower was washed away, airport completely cut off by Rapid creek, the aids and and lights failed, all the choppers from the rigs declared pans and ended up in Bathhurst along with a 1000 lighties. Also with SFA fuel was Big Rat, Ansett and Scarenorth and all tubine operators jamming the tarmac at Tindal. I went to Bathhurst later to rescue some chopper pax and were those pilots PISSED. Cycle forwards to 2006? and following a massive series of lightning strikes, the gates were welded shut, the lights had failed (again) and Darwin ended with no radar feed for over a year.

So whats the lesson...

Tha airport is a dual user facility and suffers because of it. Plan for some inadequacy fuel before you depart.

An old timer said to me when I first got up here "if its 30 holding carry 60, and if its 60 carry an alternate"

All the flights were caught short by the light failure but all were flown by proffesionals to make the correct decision to divert or hold.

just my 2 cents.....

[LeadSled]

I don't at all agree with the current fuel ideas within our company. Having said that the best way to show them its wrong is to do exactly what they want and watch it turn to ****e, as it does/has.

Most people ignore policy and the guru's walk around patting them sleves on the back. It is quite strange really.Folks,

And this works, as anybody working for QF in the early days of the "flyspot" charts can testify.

During a particularly heated period of "discussion" on the topic of "surplus fuel" (oil price shock, Part 2) a bunch of Captains made the point by carrying "flight plan fuel" to EGLL during northern winter.

Sticking strictly to "company policy", one 742 took three days and an overnight to get from Singapore to London. There were numerous en-route diversions, aeroplanes winding up in London/Gatwick, Prestwick, Manchester, Amsterdam, yada yada yada. with crews out of hours.

Costs (not to mention customer delay dissatisfaction complaints) went through the roof. A fuel stop ar EDDF is not a cheap exercise.

Surprise, surprise, a "slight reemphasis" on the matter of fuel orders followed.

As a matter of interest, not mentioned here is the ICAO recommended fuel requirements, and please remember, ICAO "30 min. fixed final reserve" is not holding fuel, it is fuel to make certain the engines are still running at touchdown.

Tootle pip!!

[oicur12]

My experience with 4 airlines has been that ignoring fuel policy is what gets the job done. with my previous employer, carrying flight plan fuel on every occasion would have resulted in utter chaos.

[Wiley]

There's be some QF people reading this old enough to remember Bill Robbi*. When the 747 Fleet captain (JD) accosted Bill in the crewroom many years ago now with:

"Bill, can you explain why you landed with 20 tons remaining on your last flight?"

Bill's reply said it all. "Yair, 'cos I didn't need it."

[DutchRoll]

In my experience there are very few "min op" people left in QF, though the odd random one still pops his head up now & again.

Having been caught a bit short into SYD on a domestic flight once (thanks to an excellent tag-team effort between the met man and ATC), I'm not a great believer in "min-op", even when it's CAVOK.

[LeadSled]

There's be some QF people reading this old enough to remember Bill Robbi*

Folks,
What a character, who could forget him, R/O. NAV, finally a pilot, talk about making staying one step ahead of technological redundancy a career.

And on a similar line, and a similar character, involving a B707-338 arriving in London with so much fuel in tanks, with Amsterdam (25 min. flight time in those days) the next stop, de-fueling was needed to stay under MLW.

The answer to a similar question from the Fleet Captain: "Because I couldn't get any more in the tanks in Athens".

Or the parking nazi complaining to the Fleet Super about another of that era's characters (I actually witnessed this myself): "Sir, Captain XXXXX is illegally parked and when I told him to move, he told me to -- Get Stuffed**. What are you going to do about it??"

The Fleet Super's reply:" Nothing".

Said parking nazi: " Why aren't you going to do anything about it."

Said the rather more perceptive Fleet Super: " Because if I do, Captain XXXXX will only tell me to --- Get Stuffed**".

And that was the answer to anybody who had the temerity to question a Captain's fuel decisions.

Aaaaah!! For the Good Old Days!!

Tootle pip!!

** Actual words censored to protect the shy,sensitive,impressionable and easily shocked.

[Tankengine]

There is still nobody!:E

At least I have never been called, and take what I need, somewhere between min op and full tanks!:ok: